[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131218185910.GS19211@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 10:59:10 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, aswin@...com,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] qrwlock: A queue read/write lock implementation
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 01:45:01PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 12/17/2013 02:21 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[ . . . ]
> >>+ signal_next(lock,&node);
> >Good, this allows multiple readers to acquire the lock concurrently,
> >give or take memory latency compared to critical-section duration.
> >When the first writer shows up, it presumably spins on the lock word.
> >
>
> Yes, that was the intention. The first writer that shows up will
> block succeeding readers from getting the lock.
>
> BTW, what was the status of the TSO memory barrier patch? This patch
> has some partial dependency it.
I am hoping that it makes it into -tip soon, as I also have a patch that
depends on it.
Thanx, Paul
--
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