From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] 2.6.17 radix-tree: updates and lockless From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt In-Reply-To: <20060620163037.6ff2c8e7.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20060408134635.22479.79269.sendpatchset@linux.site> <20060620153555.0bd61e7b.akpm@osdl.org> <1150844989.1901.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060620163037.6ff2c8e7.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:50:28 +1000 Message-Id: <1150847428.1901.60.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: npiggin@suse.de, Paul.McKenney@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > leave the bug in ppc64 or kill it's scalability > > when taking interrupts ? You have one user already, me. > > I didn't know that 30 minutes ago ;) Heh, I though I wrote that when I originally asked Nick to bring back his patch up to date :) Bah, anyway, you know now. > > From what Nick > > says, the patch has been beaten up pretty heavily and seems stable.... > > Well as I say, the tree_lock crash is way more important. We need to work > out what we're going to do then get that fixed, backport the fix to -stable > then rebase the radix-tree patches on top and get > radix-tree-rcu-lockless-readside.patch tested and reviewed. > > I guess we can do all that in time for -rc1, but not knowing _how_ we'll be > fixing the tree_lock crash is holding things up. Ok. > Paul, if you could take a close look at the RCU aspects of this work it'd > help, thanks. > > btw guys, theory has it that code which was submitted post-2.6.n is too > late for 2.6.n+1.. Yes but the lockless radix tree patch was floating around a long time ago :) Anyway, I can drop a spinlock in (in fact I have) the ppc64 irq code for now but that sucks, thus we should really seriously consider having the lockless tree in 2.6.18 or I might have to look into doing an alternate implementation specifically in arch code... or find some other way of doing the inverse mapping there... Ben. -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org