On 11/24, Alan Stern wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > Ok, synchronize_xxx() passed 1 hour rcutorture test on dual P-III.
> >
> > It behaves the same as srcu but optimized for writers. The fast path
> > for synchronize_xxx() is mutex_lock() + atomic_read() + mutex_unlock().
> > The slow path is __wait_event(), no polling. However, the reader does
> > atomic inc/dec on lock/unlock, and the counters are not per-cpu.
> >
> > Jens, is it ok for you? Alan, Paul, what is your opinion?
>
> Given that you aren't using per-cpu data, why not just rely on a spinlock?
I thought about this too, and we can re-use sp->wq.lock,
> Then everything will be simple and easy to verify,
xxx_read_lock() will be simpler, but not too much. synchronize_xxx() needs
some complication.
> with no need to worry
> about atomic instructions or memory barriers.
spin_lock() + spin_unlock() doesn't imply mb(), it allows subsequent loads
to move into the the critical region.
I personally prefer this way, but may be you are right.
Oleg.
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
