From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:34:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] 2.6.17 radix-tree: updates and lockless In-Reply-To: <1150847428.1901.60.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <20060408134635.22479.79269.sendpatchset@linux.site> <20060620153555.0bd61e7b.akpm@osdl.org> <1150844989.1901.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060620163037.6ff2c8e7.akpm@osdl.org> <1150847428.1901.60.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Andrew Morton , npiggin@suse.de, Paul.McKenney@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > 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... How many interrupts do you have to ? I would expect a simple table lookup would be fine to get from the virtual to the real interrupt. -- 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