[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130627010658.GL6123@two.firstfloor.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 03:06:58 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] spinlock: New spinlock_refcount.h for lockless
update of refcount
> In the uncontended case, doing spin_unlock_wait will be similar to
> spin_can_lock. This, when combined with a cmpxchg, is still faster
> than doing 2 atomic operations in spin_lock/spin_unlock.
I'm totally against any new users of spin_unlock_wait()
It has bizarre semantics, most likely will make various
lock optimizations impossible, it's race condition hell
for most users etc.
spin_can_lock() is not quite as bad has a lot of the similar problems.
> BTW, spin_can_lock is just the negation of spin_is_locked.
e.g. with elision it's not.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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