[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150410082245.GA25842@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:22:45 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Ionut Alexa <ionut.m.alexa@...il.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exit: Use read lock for do_notify_parent() instead of
write lock
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 08:59:08PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>
> I've not really read your email yet, however:
>
> > Also, in the future we may think about new rwlock primitive, which atomically
> > drops write lock and acquires read lock. Something like this for example:
> >
> > include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h:
> > static inline void queue_reduce_locked_write_to_read(struct qrwlock *lock)
> > {
> > smp_mb__before_atomic();
> > atomic_add(_QR_BIAS - _QW_LOCKED, &lock->cnts);
> > }
>
> we actually have that for the rwsems: downgrade_write(). So the
> consistent naming would be: queue_downgrade_write().
and 'downgrade_write_lock()' on the rwlock side.
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