[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E83703C.2010907@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:06:36 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Stephan Diestelhorst <stephan.diestelhorst@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00/10] [PATCH RFC V2] Paravirtualized ticketlocks
On 09/28/2011 11:49 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> But I don't care all *that* deeply. I do agree that the xaddw trick is
> pretty tricky. I just happen to think that it's actually *less* tricky
> than "read the upper bits separately and depend on subtle ordering
> issues with another writer that happens at the same time on another
> CPU".
>
> So I can live with either form - as long as it works. I think it might
> be easier to argue that the xaddw is guaranteed to work, because all
> values at all points are unarguably atomic (yeah, we read the lower
> bits nonatomically, but as the owner of the lock we know that nobody
> else can write them).
Exactly. I just did a locked add variant, and while the code looks a
little simpler, it definitely has more actual complexity to analyze.
J
--
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