[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070413162909.c436a732.dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:29:09 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] generic rwsems
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:31:52 +0100
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> Break the counter down like this:
>
> 0x00000000 - not locked; queue empty
> 0x40000000 - locked by writer; queue empty
> 0xc0000000 - locket by writer; queue occupied
> 0x0nnnnnnn - n readers; queue empty
> 0x8nnnnnnn - n readers; queue occupied
If space considerations are that important, we could then reserve one bit for the 'wait_lock spinlock'
0x20000000 : one cpu gained control of 'wait_list'
This would save 4 bytes on 32 bit platforms.
64 bit platforms could have a limit of 2^60 threads, instead of the way too small 2^28 one ;)
(we loose the debug version of spinlock of course)
Another possibility to save space would be to move wait_lock/wait_list outside of rw_semaphore, in a hashed global array.
This would save 12/16 bytes per rw_semaphore (inode structs are probably the most demanding)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists