[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090703152951.GA28837@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 23:29:51 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, jolsa@...hat.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
fbl@...hat.com, nhorman@...hat.com, davem@...hat.com,
htejun@...il.com, jarkao2@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
davidel@...ilserver.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
Paul.McKenney@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 2/2] memory barrier: adding smp_mb__after_lock
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:
>
> Why don't we create a read_lock without acquire semantic instead (e.g.
> read_lock_nomb(), or something with a better name like __read_lock()) ?
> On architectures where memory barriers are needed to provide the acquire
> semantic, it would be faster to do :
>
> __read_lock();
> smp_mb();
>
> than :
>
> read_lock(); <- e.g. lwsync + isync or something like that
> smp_mb(); <- full sync.
Hmm, why do we even care when read_lock should just die?
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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