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 Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:51:22AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 09:30:18AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > So as far as I can tell, we have only one real user of rwlocks where
> > livelocks might be relevant, but that one real user absolutely _requires_
> > the unfair behavior.
>
> But the required unfairness is limited to unconditionally granting
> recursive read requests, right? If I understand correctly, if a given
> CPU does not already read-hold the lock, then we can safely make that
> CPU wait for a writer that might otherwise be starved. Again, is there
> another requirement that I am missing?

I think this is the only ordering requirement.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-30 08:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans