[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001051241190.3630@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 12:46:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"hugh.dickins" <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/8] mm: handle_speculative_fault()
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 10:25 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > The readers are all hitting the
> > lock (and you can try to solve the O(n*2) issue with back-off, but quite
> > frankly, anybody who does that has basically already lost
>
> /me sneaks in a reference to local spinning spinlocks just to have them
> mentioned.
Were you in on the discussion with (I think) Andy Glew about that? I don't
think he ever came up with an actual workable solution, but he tried. He
worked for Intel at the time (maybe still does), and was looking at
architectural improvements. I think you need a "compare-and-exchange-2-
separate-words" instruction to make it work (not "cmpxchg8/16b" -
literally two _different_ words).
I think m68k can do it. Even then it's a lot more expensive than a regular
lock for any reasonable common case.
Linus
--
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