On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 01:35:39PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox <willy@debian.org> wrote:
> >
> > Jacob's would break if we hashed to different spinlocks. But we don't, we
> > shift right by 8, so we get the same spinlock for atomic things that are on
> > the same "cacheline" (i think PA cachelines are actually 64 or 128 bytes,
> > depending on model).
> >
>
> Are you prepared to cast this in stone?
I think so. It makes sense to me that we lock an entire cacheline for
this kind of thing. Indeed, locking a smaller amount would probably break
other stuff. Remember set_bit() et al take a pointer to an unsigned long...
but can take a bit number > number of bits in an unsigned long. If anything,
we should maybe expand the range covered by a single lock to a larger amount
than 256 bytes. How big are ext2 bitmaps, for example?
-- "It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies. Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 22:00:20 EST