On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 14:15, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> I was hoping to devolve the issue of the implementation of it to arch
> maintainers by asking for this. I was vaguely aware that the atomic bit
> operations are implemented via hashed spinlocks on PA-RISC and some
> others, so by asking for the right primitives to come back up from arch
> code I hoped those who spin elsewhere might take advantage of their
> window of exclusive ownership.
Yah, me too ;)
> Would saying "Here is an address, please lock it, and if you must flip
> a bit, use this bit" suffice? I thought it might give arch code enough
> room to wiggle, but is it enough?
I would prefer to do nothing right now. We can implement the general
interface but keep the pte_chain_lock abstraction. Individual
architectures can optimize their bitwise locking.
If that does not suffice and their is a REAL problem in the future we
can look to a better approach...
Robert Love
-
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 : Tue Jul 23 2002 - 22:00:34 EST