[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200808211712.27146.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:12:26 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Jared Hulbert" <jaredeh@...il.com>
Cc: Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mtd <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Jörn Engel" <joern@...fs.org>,
tim.bird@...sony.com, cotte@...ibm.com, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] AXFS: axfs_inode.c
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Jared Hulbert wrote:
> > Have you seen any benefit of the rwsem over a simple mutex? I would guess
> > that you can never even get into the situation where you get concurrent
> > readers since I haven't found a single down_read() in your code, only
> > downgrade_write()
>
> We implemented a rwsem here because you can get concurrent readers.
> My understanding is that downgrade_write() puts the rewem into the
> same state as down_read(). Am I mistaken?
Your interpretation of downgrade_write is correct, but if every thread
always does
down_write();
serialized_code();
downgrade_write();
parallel_code();
up_read();
Then you still won't have any concurrency, because each thread trying
to down_write() will be blocked until the previous one has done its up_read(),
causing parallel_code() to be serialized as well.
In addition to that, I'd still consider it better to use a simple mutex
if parallel_code() is a much faster operation than serialized_code(), as it
is in your case, where only the memcpy is parallel and that is much slower
than the deflate.
Arnd <><
--
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