lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCHv5 2/2] memory barrier: adding smp_mb__after_lock
    Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.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,
    --
    Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
    Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
    Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
    PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-07-03 17:33    [W:0.020 / U:2.984 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site