On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 06:11:36PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 06:05:33PM +0000, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 05:52:12PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > It would be nice if these were default implementations of the unlock, then > > > architectures just implement atomic_sub_release how they like. > > > > Yes, I suppose that makes sense. Last time I proposed the primitive > > nobody yelled at me, so I suppose that means people agree :-) > > If it's useful for these qrwlocks, that's good enough for me!
There's the qspinlock that can also use it. > Have you looked at the OpenCL atomic intrinsics at all? > > > http://www.khronos.org/registry/cl/sdk/1.2/docs/man/xhtml/atomicFunctions.html > > There's a good chance that they can be implemented efficiently on any > architectures that care about OpenCL. As you've noticed, composing them > together can be more efficient on LL/SC-based architectures too. Never looked at OpenCL, I'll have a look. > Okey doke. If you need a stable (non-rebasing) branch, just holler. Nah, who cares about those anyway :-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
