From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH] generalized spin_lock_bit From: Robert Love In-Reply-To: <20020720211539.GG1096@holomorphy.com> References: <1027196511.1555.767.camel@sinai> <20020720211539.GG1096@holomorphy.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 20 Jul 2002 14:19:31 -0700 Message-Id: <1027199971.1555.797.camel@sinai> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, riel@conectiva.com.br List-ID: 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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/