[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090107134715.9c5e139e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:47:15 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, matthew@....cx, rostedt@...dmis.org,
peterz@...radead.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
ghaskins@...ell.com, andi@...stfloor.org, chris.mason@...cle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, npiggin@...e.de,
pmorreale@...ell.com, SDietrich@...ell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 22:32:22 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > We could do the whole "oldfs = get_fs(); set_fs(KERNEL_DS); ..
> > set_fs(oldfs);" crud, but it would probably be better to just add an
> > architected accessor. Especially since it's going to generally just be a
> >
> > #define get_kernel_careful(val,p) __get_user(val,p)
> >
> > for most architectures.
> >
> > We've needed that before (and yes, we've simply mis-used __get_user() on
> > x86 before rather than add it).
>
> for the oldfs stuff we already have probe_kernel_read(). OTOH, that
> involves pagefault_disable() which is an atomic op
tisn't. pagefault_disable() is just preempt_count()+=1;barrier() ?
Am suspecting that you guys might be over-optimising this
contended-path-were-going-to-spin-anyway code?
--
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