Re: [x86] Unify semaphore_32.S and rwlock_64.S
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Wed Jan 20 2010 - 18:57:32 EST
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Well 2^32 readers is a bit large anyways. If we are satisifed with 2^30
> (only a billion) then it works with the same code.
Yes, that's what I would suggest. Make the constants be (for the 64-bit
#define RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE 0x00000000
#define RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS 0x00000001
#define RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK 0x3fffffff
#define RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS (~RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)
#define RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS
#define RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS (RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS + RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS)
and now all the constants should be expressable as 32-bit (signed) values.
Side note: it might be interesting to keep the rwsem_count_t be a config
option on x86-64 too, so this would _not_ necessarily always be a "x86-32"
vs "x86-64" issue. A raw spinlock is 32-bit, which together with a 32-bit
rwsem_count would make the resem's smaller. Does it matter? Maybe not. But
we might at some point decide that it's worth limiting number of threads
to 32k in certain configurations, so I'd keep my options open.
So make the size of the counter be a CONFIG_RWSEM_LARGE thing, rather than
a 32-bit vs 64-bit thing. And just start out with making x86-64 select it,
but leaving the option open to use the 32-bit version on x86-64 too?
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/