On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:50:08PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Hi Marcelo,
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:13:46PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > Hi Nick,
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:40:58AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > PG_active is protected by zone->lru_lock, it does not need TestSet/TestClear
> > > operations.
> >
> > page->flags bits (including PG_active and PG_lru bits) are touched by
> > several codepaths which do not hold zone->lru_lock.
> >
> > AFAICT zone->lru_lock guards access to the LRU list, and no more than
> > that.
> >
>
> Yep.
>
> > Moreover, what about consistency of the rest of page->flags bits?
> >
>
> That's OK, set_bit and clear_bit are atomic as well, they just don't
> imply memory barriers and can be implemented a bit more simply.
Indeed!
> The test-set / test-clear operations also kind of imply that it is
> being used for locking or without other synchronisation (usually).
Non-atomic versions such as __ClearPageLRU()/__ClearPageActive() are
not usable, though.
PPC:
static __inline__ void __clear_bit(unsigned long nr,
volatile unsigned long *addr)
{
unsigned long mask = BITOP_MASK(nr);
unsigned long *p = ((unsigned long *)addr) + BITOP_WORD(nr);
*p &= ~mask;
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
