[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170329085915.szzmxkvipijcd45k@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:59:15 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jack@...e.cz,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, mhocko@...e.com,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 09:03:26PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> +++ b/kernel/locking/range_rwlock.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,462 @@
> +/*
> + * Implementation of read/write range locks.
> + *
> + * We keep interval tree of locked and to-be-locked ranges. When new range lock
> + * is requested, we add its interval to the tree and store number of intervals
> + * intersecting it to 'blocking_ranges'.
> + *
> + * When a range is unlocked, we again walk intervals that intersect with the
> + * unlocked one and decrement their 'blocking_ranges'. We wake up owner of any
> + * range lock whose 'blocking_ranges' drops to 0. For the shared case, the
> + * 'blocking_ranges' is only incremented if the intersecting range is not marked
> + * as a reader. In order to mitigate some of the tree walk overhead for
> + * non-intersecting ranges, the tree's min/max values are maintained and consulted
> + * in O(1) in the fastpath.
> + */
Was your editor broken? Those lines are > 80 for no reason what so ever.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists