![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Ok, synchronize_xxx() passed 1 hour rcutorture test on dual P-III. > > It behaves the same as srcu but optimized for writers. The fast path > for synchronize_xxx() is mutex_lock() + atomic_read() + mutex_unlock(). > The slow path is __wait_event(), no polling. However, the reader does > atomic inc/dec on lock/unlock, and the counters are not per-cpu. > > Jens, is it ok for you? Alan, Paul, what is your opinion? Given that you aren't using per-cpu data, why not just rely on a spinlock? Then everything will be simple and easy to verify, with no need to worry about atomic instructions or memory barriers. Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-11-24 21:51 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||