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

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

You could try asking Richard Earnshaw...

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> It's been too long, sorry.  It may have been necessary solely to
> provide the separate EABI and NPTL versions in sysdeps; you'd have to
> look at e.g. the sysdeps selection order for the LinuxThreads version.
>  It may also be related to the lack of usable atomic primitives,
> pre-EABI.
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Carlos O'Donell
> <carlos@systemhalted.org> wrote:
>> 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 support this kind of scheme, those cpus would be even more outdated.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.
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Daniel



--
Thanks,
Daniel