lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [rfc] "fair" rw spinlocks
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 08:07:16AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> > Well the simple thing I tried earlier was a per-cpu array of nesting
> > counter there. It's not _too_ expensive, but it does add another cacheline
> > access and branch there. It seems to work in solving the livelock though.
>
> So how did you do the nesting counter? Afaik, it needs to be something
> like
>
> local_irq_save(flags);
> if (!get_cpu_var(tasklist_counter)++)
> spin_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> local_irq_restore(flags);
>
> on the read_lock side (and the same in reverse on unlock). Which seems
> quite a bit more expensive than what we have now. Especially on UP, but I
> guess you can make it conditional on CONFIG_SMP (but that won't help
> generic kernels).

My suggestion would be to put the nesting counter in the task structure
to avoid this problem.

Thanx, Paul


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-30 17:41    [W:0.108 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site