[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001051251090.3630@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:00:18 -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, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> I think you need a "compare-and-exchange-2-separate-words" instruction
> to make it work (not "cmpxchg8/16b" - literally two _different_ words).
Btw, I might be misremembering - Andy was looking at various lockless
algorithms too. Maybe the problem was the non-local space requirement.
There were several spin-lock variants that would be improved if we could
pass a cookie from the 'lock' to the 'unlock'.
In fact, even the ticket locks would be improved by that, since we could
then possibly do the unlock as a plain 'store' rather than an 'add', and
keep the nex-owner cookie in a register over the lock rather than unlock
by just incrementing it in the nasty lock cacheline.
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