[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101115034946.GA3320@amd>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:49:46 +1100
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patches] seqlock: add barrier-less special cases for seqcounts
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 03:52:55PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk> wrote:
> . ...
> > seq2 = read_seqlock_begin(&child->d_seq);
> > if (read_seqcount_retry(&dentry->d_seq, seq))
> > /* bail out */
>
> So the only issue is that this particular back-to-back sequence with
> these kinds of "take one seqlock and release the previous one" where
> you currently end up having basically one smp_rmb() at the end of
> "read_seqlock_begin()", only to be followed immediately by another one
> starting out the "read_seqcount_retry()"?
I think basically yes, I'll have to take another look at the code.
> If so, I think we should make _that_ operation ("move from one seqlock
> to another") be the special one, because it smells like in general,
> using the special non-locking versions is going to be a very subtle
> interface.
OK, that sounds like a good idea. I'll see if that's applicable.
--
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