This is the mail archive of the libc-ports@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the libc-ports project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Avoid unnecessary busy loop in __lll_timedlock_wait on ARM.

From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at systemhalted dot org>
To: David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>
Cc: carlos at redhat dot com, drow at false dot org, joseph at codesourcery dot com, schwab at linux-m68k dot org, thomas_schwinge at mentor dot com, kkojima at rr dot iij4u dot or dot jp, marcus dot shawcroft at linaro dot org, katsuki dot uwatoko at toshiba dot co dot jp, libc-ports at sourceware dot org
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:54:54 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Avoid unnecessary busy loop in __lll_timedlock_wait on ARM.
References: <CAE2sS1isYziYbmy1sgvhVPTp8_3hbNYKsnj_pXrZmjv53=mm6Q@mail.gmail.com> <20130209.014909.573423212502453699.davem@davemloft.net> <5116636F.1040003@redhat.com> <20130209.235603.1409377113964639273.davem@davemloft.net>

On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:56 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com>
> Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 09:55:43 -0500
>
>> I'd seen the *other* sparc pre-v9 implementation that used 64 global
>> locks per-library and that seemed signal unsafe and prone to deadlocks.
>
> All of these pre-v9 things are signal unsafe and deadlock.
>
> I thought about doing the kernel atomic emulation other platforms have
> adopted, but frankly these cpus are so old and deprecated that they're
> not worth doing the work for.
>
> And by the time we'd propagate all of this infrastructure necessary to
> support this kind of scheme, those cpus would be even more outdated.
>
> Even debian does v9-only build on 32-bit.

Eminently practical. Just curious. Thanks for verifying what I suspected.

Cheers,
Carlos.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Avoid unnecessary busy loop in __lll_timedlock_wait on ARM.
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz

References:
- Re: [PATCH] Avoid unnecessary busy loop in __lll_timedlock_wait on ARM.
  - From: Carlos O'Donell
- Re: [PATCH] Avoid unnecessary busy loop in __lll_timedlock_wait on ARM.
  - From: David Miller
- Re: [PATCH] Avoid unnecessary busy loop in __lll_timedlock_wait on ARM.
  - From: Carlos O'Donell
- Re: [PATCH] Avoid unnecessary busy loop in __lll_timedlock_wait on ARM.
  - From: David Miller

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]