[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150803113331.GJ25159@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 13:33:31 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, arc-linux-dev@...opsys.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] ARC: LLOCK/SCOND based rwlock
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 03:33:06PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> With LLOCK/SCOND, the rwlock counter can be atomically updated w/o need
> for a guarding spin lock.
Maybe re-iterate the exclusive vs shared spin story again.
And aside from the far too many full barriers (again), I was just
wondering about:
> +static inline void arch_write_unlock(arch_rwlock_t *rw)
> +{
> + unsigned int val;
> +
> + smp_mb();
> +
> + /*
> + * rw->counter = __ARCH_RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED__;
> + */
> + __asm__ __volatile__(
> + "1: llock %[val], [%[rwlock]] \n"
> + " scond %[UNLOCKED], [%[rwlock]]\n"
> + " bnz 1b \n"
> + " \n"
> + : [val] "=&r" (val)
> + : [rwlock] "r" (&(rw->counter)),
> + [UNLOCKED] "r" (__ARCH_RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED__)
> + : "memory", "cc");
> +
> + smp_mb();
> +}
Why can't that be a straight store?
--
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