Gautham wrote:
+ *- Readers assume control iff: *
+ * a) No other reader has a reference and no writer is writing. *
+ * OR *
+ * b) Atleast one reader (on *any* cpu) has a reference. *
Isn't this logically equivalent to stating:
*- Readers assume control iff no writer is writing
(Or if it's not equivalent, it might be interesting to state why.)
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- [RFC 0/5] lock_cpu_hotplug: Redesign - A "lightweight" scalable version.
- From: Gautham R Shenoy <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 1/5] lock_cpu_hotplug:Redesign - Fix coding style issues in cpufreq.
- From: Gautham R Shenoy <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 2/5] lock_cpu_hotplug:Redesign - remove lock_cpu_hotplug from hot-cpu_callback path in cpufreq.
- From: Gautham R Shenoy <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 3/5] lock_cpu_hotplug:Redesign - Use lock_cpu_hotplug in workqueue.c instead of workqueue_mutex.
- From: Gautham R Shenoy <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 4/5] lock_cpu_hotplug: Redesign - Lightweight implementation of lock_cpu_hotplug.
- From: Gautham R Shenoy <[email protected]>
- [RFC 0/5] lock_cpu_hotplug: Redesign - A "lightweight" scalable version.
- Prev by Date: [PATCH] Add .mailmap at the toplevel.
- Next by Date: Re: rename() contention (BUG?)
- Previous by thread: [PATCH 5/5] lock_cpu_hotplug: Redesign - Lockdep support for lightweight lock_cpu_hotplug.
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 4/5] lock_cpu_hotplug: Redesign - Lightweight implementation of lock_cpu_hotplug.
- Index(es):
 |