[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808190946560.3324@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> It strikes me that Intel has a nice (probably slow?) cmpxchg16b
> instruction on x86_64. Therefore, we could atomically update 128 bits,
> which gives the following table :
Stop this crapola.
Take a look at the rwsem thing I pointed you to. After you understand
that, come back.
The WHOLE POINT of that thing was to use only 32-bit atomics on the hot
path. Don't even start think9ing about cmpxchg16b. If you cannot do your
atomics in 32-bit, they're broken.
Please. I realize that the rwsem implementation I did is subtle. But
really. Spend the time to understand it.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists