> 32-bit Sparc has unsigned long as 32-bit, and the top 8 bits of the
> atomic_t are used for a spinlock, thus a 27-bit atomic_t, there
> is not enough precision.
So the SPARC port is broken. It is just sick to have this "feature"
screw things up for all the ports with a proper atomic_t.
-
To un
At 07.00 09/12/00 -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
>Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 16:07:03 +0100
>From: Roberto Fichera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>8 bits for a spinlock ? What kind of use we have here ?
>
>Sparc32 (like some other older architectures) do not have a
>word atomic update instruction,
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 16:07:03 +0100
From: Roberto Fichera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8 bits for a spinlock ? What kind of use we have here ?
Sparc32 (like some other older architectures) do not have a
word atomic update instruction, but it does have a byte spinlock.
To conserve space and imp
At 06.42 09/12/00 -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
>Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 15:48:05 +0100
>From: Roberto Fichera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>atomic_t does not guarentee a large enough range necessary for mm->rss
>
>If we haven't some atomic_t that can be negative we could define atomic_t
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 15:48:05 +0100
From: Roberto Fichera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>atomic_t does not guarentee a large enough range necessary for mm->rss
If we haven't some atomic_t that can be negative we could define atomic_t
as unsigned long for all arch,
this is sufficient t
At 13.43 09/12/00 +0100, Rasmus Andersen wrote:
>On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 11:25:09AM +0100, Roberto Fichera wrote:
>[...]
> > >+ spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> > > mm->rss++;
> > >+ spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> > >
> >
> > [...snip...]
> >
> > Why we couldn't use at
Date:Sat, 09 Dec 2000 11:25:09 +0100
From: Roberto Fichera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Why we couldn't use atomic_inc(&mm->rss) here and below, avoiding to wrap
the inc with a spin_lock()/spin_unlock() ?
atomic_t does not guarentee a large enough range necessary for mm->rss
Later,
D
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 11:25:09AM +0100, Roberto Fichera wrote:
[...]
> >+ spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> > mm->rss++;
> >+ spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> >
>
> [...snip...]
>
> Why we couldn't use atomic_inc(&mm->rss) here and below, avoiding to wrap
> the inc wit
At 21.29 08/12/00 +0100, Rasmus Andersen wrote:
>Hi.
>
>The following patch moves the page_table_lock in mm/* to cover the
>modification of mm->rss in 240-test12-pre7. It was inspired by a
>similar patch from davej(?) which covered too much, AFAIR. The item
>is on Tytso's ToDo list.
[...snip...]
Date:Fri, 8 Dec 2000 15:36:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Mark Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
can't we just change rss to count pages?
This is what it does now.
or are we worried about rss's over ~16 TB?
If we weren't, we could just use an atomic_t for this problem.
We can't.
This patch
> The following patch moves the page_table_lock in mm/* to cover the
> modification of mm->rss in 240-test12-pre7. It was inspired by a
can't we just change rss to count pages?
or are we worried about rss's over ~16 TB?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
Hi.
The following patch moves the page_table_lock in mm/* to cover the
modification of mm->rss in 240-test12-pre7. It was inspired by a
similar patch from davej(?) which covered too much, AFAIR. The item
is on Tytso's ToDo list.
Please comment.
diff -Naur linux-240-t12-pre7-clean/mm/memory.c
12 matches
Mail list logo
