[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090703154700.GD10256@Krystal>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:47:00 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, 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, Paul.McKenney@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 2/2] memory barrier: adding smp_mb__after_lock
* Eric Dumazet (eric.dumazet@...il.com) wrote:
> 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 ?
>
I think he meant RCU.
> Also, how many arches are able to have a true __read_lock()
> (or __spin_lock() if that matters), without acquire semantic ?
At least PowerPC, MIPS, recent ARM, alpha.
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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