Re: [RFC] unify semaphore implementations
From: Trond Myklebust
Date: Fri Apr 29 2005 - 10:43:17 EST
fr den 29.04.2005 Klokka 10:14 (-0400) skreiv Benjamin LaHaise:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 10:44:17AM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > You have made semaphores bigger and slower on the architectures that
> > have load-linked/store-conditional instructions, which is at least
> > ppc, ppc64, sparc64 and alpha. Did you take the trouble to understand
> > the ppc semaphore implementation?
> The ppc implementation does have some good ideas that are worth using.
> It's hard to know which of the 23 versions were worth using, but I'm
> getting a picture where at least 2 variants are need. The atomic ops
> variant should use the single counter as ppc does (why did nobody port
> that to x86?). A spinlock version is needed at least by parisc.
The PPC implementation would be hard to port to x86, since it relies on
the load-linked/store-conditional stuff to provide a fast primitive for
The only way I found to implement that on x86 was to use cmpxchg. On my
machine, therefore, a spinlock-based semaphore implementation turns out
to be at least as fast for the "fast" path (and is naturally much more
efficient for the slow path).
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/