Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753320AbYLCMgu (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:36:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751987AbYLCMgl (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:36:41 -0500 Received: from styx.suse.cz ([82.119.242.94]:33768 "EHLO mail.suse.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751789AbYLCMgk (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:36:40 -0500 Subject: Re: [Patch V3 0/3] Enable irqs when waiting for rwlocks From: Petr Tesarik To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Robin Holt , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, tee@sgi.com, mingo@elte.hu, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1228307117.9673.232.camel@twins> References: <20081104122405.046233722@attica.americas.sgi.com> <20081202161311.ae3376cb.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20081203113744.GE8970@sgi.com> <1228307117.9673.232.camel@twins> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Organization: SUSE LINUX Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:36:38 +0100 Message-Id: <1228307798.1009.1.camel@nathan.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1395 Lines: 30 Peter Zijlstra píše v St 03. 12. 2008 v 13:25 +0100: > On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 05:37 -0600, Robin Holt wrote: > > > It's a bit regrettable to have different architectures behaving in > > > different ways. It would be interesting to toss an x86_64 > > > implementation into the grinder, see if it causes any problems, see if > > > it produces any tangible benefits. Then other architectures might > > > follow. Or not, depending on the results ;) > > > > I personally expect SGI to work on this for x86_64 in the future. > > Once we actually start testing systems with 128 and above cpus, I > > would expect to see these performance issues needing to be addressed. > > Until then, it is just a theoretical. > > Personally I consider this a ugly hack and would love to see people > solve the actual problem and move away from rwlock_t, its utter rubbish. Me too, but we don't have that clean and nice solution today, but what we _do_ have today are the machines which break badly when interrupts are disabled for the whole duration of taking a rwlock_t. :( Feel free to rewrite all users of rwlock_t. I'll appreciate it, oh so very much. Petr -- 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/