[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A4E25BB.8060408@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:37:31 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>, mingo@...e.hu,
jolsa@...hat.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, fbl@...hat.com, nhorman@...hat.com,
davem@...hat.com, htejun@...il.com, jarkao2@...il.com,
oleg@...hat.com, davidel@...ilserver.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
Paul.McKenney@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 2/2] memory barrier: adding smp_mb__after_lock
Herbert Xu a écrit :
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:
>> Why don't we create a read_lock without acquire semantic instead (e.g.
>> read_lock_nomb(), or something with a better name like __read_lock()) ?
>> On architectures where memory barriers are needed to provide the acquire
>> semantic, it would be faster to do :
>>
>> __read_lock();
>> smp_mb();
>>
>> than :
>>
>> read_lock(); <- e.g. lwsync + isync or something like that
>> smp_mb(); <- full sync.
>
> Hmm, why do we even care when read_lock should just die?
>
> Cheers,
+1 :)
Do you mean using a spinlock instead or what ?
Also, how many arches are able to have a true __read_lock()
(or __spin_lock() if that matters), without acquire semantic ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists