lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [parisc-linux] rmap: parisc __flush_dcache_page
From
Date
On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 12:10, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> I said above per-arch abstraction, a per-arch abstraction isn't an irq
> safe spinlock, we cannot add an irq safe spinlock there, it'd be too bad
> for all the common archs that don't need to walk those lists (actually
> trees in my -aa tree) from irq context.

I think we agree on the abstraction thing. I was more wondering what
you thought was so costly about an irq safe spinlock as opposed to an
ordinary one? Is there something adding to this cost I don't know
about? i.e. should we be thinking about something like RCU or phased
tree approach to walking the mapping lists?

James


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:0.047 / U:0.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site