[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <C2D7FE5348E1B147BCA15975FBA23075665B09D1@IN01WEMBXB.internal.synopsys.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:51:15 +0000
From: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"arc-linux-dev@...opsys.com" <arc-linux-dev@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] ARC: LLOCK/SCOND based rwlock
On Monday 03 August 2015 05:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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?
Right - that was my overly cautious initial implementation. I did switch the spin
unlock to regular ST after initial experimenting, but missed this one. I'll take
it out in next version.
-Vineet
--
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