Re: [patch] generic rwsems

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Friday, April 13, 2007 - 7:29 am

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:31:52 +0100
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:



If space considerations are that important, we could then reserve one bit for the 'wait_lock spinlock'

0x20000000 : one cpu gained control of 'wait_list'

This would save 4 bytes on 32 bit platforms.

64 bit platforms could have a limit of 2^60 threads, instead of the way too small 2^28 one ;)

(we loose the debug version of spinlock of course)

Another possibility to save space would be to move wait_lock/wait_list outside of rw_semaphore, in a hashed global array.
This would save 12/16 bytes per rw_semaphore (inode structs are probably the most demanding)
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[patch] generic rwsems, Nick Piggin, (Fri Apr 13, 3:04 am)
fastcalls, was Re: [patch] generic rwsems, Christoph Hellwig, (Fri Apr 13, 3:19 am)
Re: [patch] generic rwsems, Nick Piggin, (Fri Apr 13, 3:25 am)
Re: [patch] generic rwsems, Andi Kleen, (Fri Apr 13, 3:53 am)
Re: fastcalls, was Re: [patch] generic rwsems, Nick Piggin, (Fri Apr 13, 3:59 am)
Re: [patch] generic rwsems, Nick Piggin, (Fri Apr 13, 4:20 am)
Re: [patch] generic rwsems , David Howells, (Fri Apr 13, 4:44 am)
Re: [patch] generic rwsems , David Howells, (Fri Apr 13, 5:09 am)
Re: [patch] generic rwsems, Christoph Hellwig, (Fri Apr 13, 5:13 am)
Re: [patch] generic rwsems, Nick Piggin, (Fri Apr 13, 5:43 am)
Re: [patch] generic rwsems, William Lee Irwin III, (Fri Apr 13, 6:22 am)
Re: [patch] generic rwsems , David Howells, (Fri Apr 13, 6:31 am)
Re: [patch] generic rwsems, Nick Piggin, (Fri Apr 13, 7:03 am)
Re: [patch] generic rwsems, Eric Dumazet, (Fri Apr 13, 7:29 am)
Re: [patch] generic rwsems , David Howells, (Fri Apr 13, 7:49 am)