[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130930070551.GC13584@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 09:05:51 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rwsem: reduce spinlock contention in wakeup code path
* Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com> wrote:
> That said, I am very scared of using rwlock_t here, and I would much
> prefer we choose a fair lock (either spinlock or a new rwlock
> implementation which guarantees not to starve any locker thread)
Given how few users rwlock_t has today we could attempt to make it
reader-writer fair, as long as the usecase of a hardirq or softirq
context always getting nested read access on the same CPU is preserved.
(but that can be done - if nothing else then with an explicit context
check.)
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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