[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <h2h8d20b11a1005121939tb35d9708p92eebd1f7b66b93a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 19:39:37 -0700
From: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/12] rwsem: wake queued readers when other readers are
active
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:22 AM, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com> wrote:
>
>> In this situation, it would be perfectly fine to let threads B and C work
>> in parallel as they each only want a read acquire on the rwsem. We can
>> recognize this situation and let A wake B as long as there are no active
>> writers on the rwsem.
>
> There can't be any active writers on the rwsem. An active writer must have
> just been upped and is in the process of waking the first sleeper up.
Yes. My point is that by the point thread A (the writer that just got
upped) gets around to waking B (a blocked reader), another reader C
might have gotten active already. We don't want the nonzero active
count (due to C) to prevent B from getting woken.
--
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
--
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