[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1282061090.3268.1514.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:04:50 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
josh@...htriplett.org, dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/10] rcu: Add a TINY_PREEMPT_RCU
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 11:55 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > Heck, this is too much micro optimization. We could just be safe and do
> > the:
> > --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting;
> > barrier();
> > if (ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_lock_nesting) == 0 &&
> > unlikely((ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special)))
> >
> > And be done with it.
>
> Then we could go for the simpler:
>
> --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting;
> barrier();
> if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0 &&
> unlikely((t->rcu_read_unlock_special))
Yeah, that's what I meant, I was too lazy to remove the ACCESS_ONCE()
from the cut and paste I did.
>
> Which puts a constraint across all memory accesses. I'd be fine with
> that if you are afraid of too much micro-optimization (e.g. my
> barrier2(a, b) proposal).
Not afraid, but just too much code for a simple solution.
-- Steve
--
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