[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101113063551.GD3837@hack>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:35:51 +0800
From: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Cypher Wu <cypher.w@...il.com>
Cc: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Kernel rwlock design, Multicore and IGMP
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 07:06:47PM +0800, Cypher Wu wrote:
>>
>> Note, on Tile, it uses a little different algorithm.
>>
>
>It seems that rwlock on x86 and tile have different behavior, x86 use
>RW_LOCK_BIAS, when read_lock() it will test if the lock is 0, and if
>so then the read_lock() have to 'spinning', otherwise it dec the lock;
>when write_lock() tried it first check if lock is It seems that rwlock
>on x86 and tile have different behavior, x86 use RW_LOCK_BIAS and if
>so, set lock to 0 and continue, otherwise it will 'spinning'.
>I'm not very familiar with x86 architecture, but the code seems like
>working that way.
No, they should be the same, sorry I made a mistake in the above reply.
Although Tile uses shifts in implementation while x86 uses inc/dec,
the idea is same, either writers use higher bits and readers use
lower bits or vice-versa.
--
Live like a child, think like the god.
--
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