Re: [rfc] optimise unlock_page

[Hugh Dickins]

On Sun, 13 May 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 02:15:03PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> 
> > Hmm, well, I think that's fairly horrid, and would it even be
> > guaranteed to work on all architectures?  Playing with one char
> > of an unsigned long in one way, while playing with the whole of
> > the unsigned long in another way (bitops) sounds very dodgy to me.
> 
> Of course not, but they can just use a regular atomic word sized
> bitop. The problem with i386 is that its atomic ops also imply
> memory barriers that you obviously don't need on unlock.

But is it even a valid procedure on i386?

Hugh
-
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/