[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTinx3pcJHGrQq_C-Rgk5g7SxjmpTcD0A50d8d48b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:53:17 +0800
From: Cypher Wu <cypher.w@...il.com>
To: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/tile: fix rwlock so would-be write lockers don't
block new readers
2010/11/24 Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>:
> On 11/22/2010 8:36 PM, Cypher Wu wrote:
>> Say, if core A try to write_lock() rwlock and current_ticket_ is 0 and
>> it write next_ticket_ to 1, when it processing the lock, core B try to
>> write_lock() again and write next_ticket_ to 2, then when A
>> write_unlock() it seen that (current_ticket_+1) is not equal to
>> next_ticket_, so it increment current_ticket_, and core B get the
>> lock. If core A try write_lock again before core B write_unlock, it
>> will increment next_ticket_ to 3. And so on.
>> This may rarely happened, I've tested it yesterday for several hours
>> it goes very well under pressure.
>
> This should be OK when it happens (other than starving out the readers, but
> that was the decision made by doing a ticket lock in the first place).
> Even if we wrap around 255 back to zero on the tickets, the ticket queue
> will work correctly. The key is not to need more than 256 concurrent write
> lock waiters, which we don't.
>
> --
> Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp.
> http://www.tilera.com
>
>
If we count on that, should we make 'my_ticket_ = (val >>
WR_NEXT_SHIFT) & WR_MASK;'?
--
Cyberman Wu
http://www.meganovo.com
--
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