Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
> This patch (along with the subsequent one to optimise unlock_page) reduces
> the overhead of lock_page/unlock_page (measured with page faults and a patch
> to lock the page in the fault handler) by about 425 cycles on my 2-way G5.
Seems reasonable, though test_and_set_lock_bit() might be a better name.
> +There are two special bitops with lock barrier semantics (acquire/release,
> +same as spinlocks).
You should update Documentation/memory-barriers.txt also.
> #define TestSetPageLocked(page) \
> test_and_set_bit(PG_locked, &(page)->flags)
> +#define TestSetPageLocked_Lock(page) \
> + test_and_set_bit_lock(PG_locked, &(page)->flags)
Can we get away with just moving TestSetPageLocked() to the new function
rather than adding another accessor? Or how about LockPageLocked() and
UnlockPageLocked() rather than SetPageLocked_Lock() that last looks wrong
somehow.
The FRV changes look reasonable, btw.
David
-
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]
