Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [parisc-linux] rmap: parisc __flush_dcache_page | From | James Bottomley <> | Date | 08 Apr 2004 12:43:45 -0500 |
| |
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/
| |