[ltt-dev] [rp] Userspace RCU 0.2.3

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

* Pavel Machek (pavel at ucw.cz) wrote:
> On Sun 2009-10-18 18:02:43, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Pavel Machek (pavel at ucw.cz) wrote:
> > > On Thu 2009-10-15 13:40:54, Pierre-Marc Fournier wrote:
> > > > Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Even Debian has given up on real 386 systems at this point, primarily
> > > > > because system libraries like glibc have; 486 and better represents the
> > > > > bare minimum required at this point.  I don't know of any distributions
> > > > > supporting real 386 systems at this point, and doing so would represent
> > > > > a major undertaking.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > What about embedded systems? Anyone know if some 386 chips, perhaps even
> > > > in smp configurations, are still in use in those?
> > > 
> > > smp 386: definitely not.
> > 
> > Hrm, so for UP 386, I wonder what's the best approach.
> > 
> > One would be to encapsulate all write accesses to the RCU pointers. If
> > we detect that the architecture lacks cmpxchg, _all_ update operations
> > (rcu_assign_pointer, rcu_xchg_pointer and rcu_cmpxchg_pointer) would
> > have to use the signal-disabled+mutex fall-back.
> > 
> > Does it make sense ?
> 
> Yep, but it sounds expensive. Another option is to ignore the issue
> and see how many people still have 386s :-). Few  embedded  systems
> may be affected, but...
> 

I can keep that as a special build option, e.g.

target: i386

Mathieu

> 									Pavel
> -- 
> (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
> (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ltt-dev mailing list
> ltt-dev at lists.casi.polymtl.ca
> http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68