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:0.229 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site