[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wg_facR6y3gnmtGwBSJYZdHm5rWSPpPhJG6XswW4+mO1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2019 17:10:15 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-tip v7 00/20] locking/rwsem: Rwsem rearchitecture part 2
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 4:12 PM Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> I implemented your suggestion in patch 1 as it will produce simpler and
> faster code. However, one of the changes in my patchset is to wake up
> all the readers in the wait list. This means I have to jump over the
> writers and wake up the readers behind them as well. See patch 11 for
> details. As a result, I have to revert back to use list_add_tail() and
> list_for_each_entry_safe() for the first pass. That is why the diff for
> the whole patchset is just the below change. It is done on purpose, not
> an omission.
Ahh, ok. In that case I suspect the clever code isn't even worth it,
since it very much depends on just splitting the list in a fixed
place.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists