Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265462AbUIIP1s (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:27:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265817AbUIIP1s (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:27:48 -0400 Received: from dragnfire.mtl.istop.com ([66.11.160.179]:24017 "EHLO dsl.commfireservices.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265462AbUIIP1q (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:27:46 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:32:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Zwane Mwaikambo To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Paul Mackerras , Linux Kernel , Andrew Morton , William Lee Irwin III , Matt Mackall , Anton Blanchard , "Nakajima, Jun" Subject: Re: [PATCH][5/8] Arch agnostic completely out of line locks / ppc64 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <16703.60725.153052.169532@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 996 Lines: 24 On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > and the fact is, this is all much better just done in the arch-specific > > spinlock code. > > This is especially true since some architectures may have high overheads > for this, so you may do normal spinning for a while before you even start > doing the "fancy" stuff. So there is no ay we should expose this as a > "generic" interface. It ain't generic. It's very much a low-level > implementation detail of "spin_lock()". Agreed, Paul we may as well remove the cpu_relax() in __preempt_spin_lock and use something like "cpu_yield" (architectures not supporting it would just call cpu_relax) i'll have something for you later. Thanks, Zwane - 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/