[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1261160347.30286.6.camel@laptop>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:19:07 +0100
From: Miquel van Smoorenburg <miquels@...tron.nl>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: spinlock which can morph into a mutex
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 18:14 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> I think I need a spinlock that can morph into a mutex ..
>
> Is the writer frequency and the possible contention so high that you
> need a spinlock at all ?
Possibly - I don't want to degrade the performance of existing code
(which uses a spinlock).
> Test it :)
Good point.
> If the mutex is still to heavy weight for you, then you can solve it
> without implementing another weird concurrency control:
>
> wait_event_(un)interruptible(&hash_wq, !hash_update_active);
>
> hash_update_active = 1;
> ....
> hash_update_active = 0;
> wake_up(&hash_wq);
Ah, ofcourse. Thanks for pointing that out!
Thanks everybody for your input. I gained quite a bit of insight.
Mike.
--
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