[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANRm+CzfQFHDZDdBc+WxSkFPaE6x=b+PGBeEnnAqgmjDi=1DDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 13:57:49 +0800
From: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@....com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-tip v4 07/10] locking/rwsem: Change RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS
for better disambiguation
2016-08-19 5:11 GMT+08:00 Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>:
> When the count value is in between 0 and RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, there
> are 2 possibilities.
> Either a writer is present and there is no waiter
count = 0xffff0001
>or there are waiters and readers. There is no easy way to
count = 0xffff000X
However, RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS is equal to 0xffff0000, so both these two
cases are beyond RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, right?
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
Powered by blists - more mailing lists