Re: x86 rwsem in 2.4.4pre[234] are still buggy [was Re: rwsembenchmarks [Re: generic rwsem [Re: Alpha "process table hang"]]]

2001-04-21 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Russell King wrote: > > Erm, spin_lock()? What if up_read or up_write gets called from interrupt > context (is this allowed)? Currently that is not allowed. We allow it for regular semaphores, but not for rw-semaphores. We may some day have to revisit that issue, but I

Re: x86 rwsem in 2.4.4pre[234] are still buggy [was Re: rwsembenchmarks [Re: generic rwsem [Re: Alpha process table hang]]]

2001-04-21 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Russell King wrote: Erm, spin_lock()? What if up_read or up_write gets called from interrupt context (is this allowed)? Currently that is not allowed. We allow it for regular semaphores, but not for rw-semaphores. We may some day have to revisit that issue, but I

Re: x86 rwsem in 2.4.4pre[234] are still buggy [was Re: rwsembenchmarks [Re: generic rwsem [Re: Alpha "process table hang"]]]

2001-04-20 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > While dropping the list_empty check to speed up the fast path I faced the same > complexity of the 2.4.4pre4 lib/rwsem.c and so before reinventing the wheel I > read how the problem was solved in 2.4.4pre4. I would suggest the following: - the

Re: x86 rwsem in 2.4.4pre[234] are still buggy [was Re: rwsembenchmarks [Re: generic rwsem [Re: Alpha process table hang]]]

2001-04-20 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: While dropping the list_empty check to speed up the fast path I faced the same complexity of the 2.4.4pre4 lib/rwsem.c and so before reinventing the wheel I read how the problem was solved in 2.4.4pre4. I would suggest the following: - the