[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121019175737.GA1936@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:57:37 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] brw_mutex: big read-write mutex
On 10/19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> But using preempt_{disable,enable} and using synchronize_sched() would
> be better (for PREEMPT_RCU) although it wouldn't fix anything
> fundamental.
BTW, I agree. I didn't even notice percpu-rwsem.h uses _rcu, not _sched.
> Fine goal, although somewhat arch specific. Also note that there's a
> relation between atomics and memory barriers, one isn't necessarily
> worse than the other, they all require synchronization of sorts.
As Paul pointed out, the fast path can avoid mb(). It is only needed
when "up_read" detects the writer.
Oleg.
--
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