On 11/25, Alan Stern wrote:
>
> Yes, you are right. The corrected routine (including your little
> optimization) looks like this:
>
> void synchronize_xxx(struct xxx_struct *sp)
> {
> int idx;
>
> mutex_lock(&sp->mutex);
> spin_lock(&sp->lock);
> idx = sp->completed & 0x1;
> if (sp->ctr[idx] == 1)
> goto done;
Actually, this optimization doesn't make sense with spinlocks. If we use
atomic_t the fast path is just atomic_read(), no stores at all. But if we
are doing lock/unlock anyway, it is silly to optimize out '++sp->completed'.
> ++sp->completed;
> --sp->ctr[idx];
> sp->ctr[idx ^ 1] = 1;
>
> spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
> __wait_event(sp->wq, sp->ctr[idx] == 0);
> spin_lock(&sp->lock);
>
> done:
> spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
Oh, please no. The empty critical section is silly. Also, the spinlock based
implementation doesn't need to have additional "reference" in ->ctr[completed].
struct xxx_struct {
int completed;
int ctr[2];
struct mutex mutex;
wait_queue_head_t wq;
};
void init_xxx_struct(struct xxx_struct *sp)
{
sp->completed = 0;
sp->ctr[0] = sp->ctr[1] = 0;
mutex_init(&sp->mutex);
init_waitqueue_head(&sp->wq);
}
int xxx_read_lock(struct xxx_struct *sp)
{
int idx;
spin_lock(&sp->lock);
idx = sp->completed & 0x1;
sp->ctr[idx]++;
spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
return idx;
}
void xxx_read_unlock(struct xxx_struct *sp, int idx)
{
spin_lock(&sp->lock);
if (!--sp->ctr[idx])
wake_up(&sp->wq);
spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
}
void synchronize_xxx(struct xxx_struct *sp)
{
int idx;
mutex_lock(&sp->mutex);
spin_lock(&sp->lock);
idx = sp->completed++ & 0x1;
spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
wait_event(sp->wq, !sp->ctr[idx]);
spin_unlock_wait(&sp->lock);
mutex_unlock(&sp->mutex);
}
> It may indeed be equivalent. But _proving_ it is equivalent is certainly
> not easy. The advantage of spinlocks is that they remove the necessity
> for outrageous mental contortions to verify that all possible execution
> paths will work correctly.
> ...
> It will generally be somewhat slower.
I still like atomic_t more :) Let's wait for Paul's opinion.
What about naming? synchronize_qrcu?
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]
