[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130305164106.GA4329@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 17:41:06 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@...il.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
mingo@...nel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux@....linux.org.uk, xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, rostedt@...dmis.org, rjw@...k.pl,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
sbw@....edu, tj@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] lglock: add read-preference local-global rwlock
On 03/05, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
> On 03/03/13 01:20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 03/02, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >>
> >> +void lg_rwlock_local_read_unlock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
> >> +{
> >> + switch (__this_cpu_read(*lgrw->reader_refcnt)) {
> >> + case 1:
> >> + __this_cpu_write(*lgrw->reader_refcnt, 0);
> >> + lg_local_unlock(&lgrw->lglock);
> >> + return;
> >> + case FALLBACK_BASE:
> >> + __this_cpu_write(*lgrw->reader_refcnt, 0);
> >> + read_unlock(&lgrw->fallback_rwlock);
> >> + rwlock_release(&lg->lock_dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
> >
> > I guess "case 1:" should do rwlock_release() too.
>
> Already do it in "lg_local_unlock(&lgrw->lglock);" before it returns.
> (I like reuse old code)
Yes, I was wrong thanks. Another case when I didn't notice that you
re-use the regular lg_ code...
> > We need rwlock_acquire_read() even in the fast-path, and this acquire_read
> > should be paired with rwlock_acquire() in _write_lock(), but it does
> > spin_acquire(lg->lock_dep_map). Yes, currently this is the same (afaics)
> > but perhaps fallback_rwlock->dep_map would be more clean.
>
> I can't tell which one is better. I try to use fallback_rwlock->dep_map later.
I am not sure which one should be better too, please check.
Again, I forgot that _write_lock/unlock use lg_global_*() code.
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