Messages in this thread |  | | From | "Manfred Spraul" <> | Subject | Re: RFC: patch to allow lock-free traversal of lists with insertion | Date | Tue, 9 Oct 2001 18:51:00 +0200 |
| |
> > On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 07:03:37PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > > I don't *like* making Alpha's wmb() stronger, but it is the > > only solution which doesn't touch common code. > > It's not a "solution" at all. It's so heavy weight you'd be > much better off with locks. Just use the damned rmb_me_harder.
rmb_me_harder? smp_mb__{before,after}_{atomic_dec,clear_bit} are already ugly enough.
What about hiding all these details in the list access macros? list_insert, list_get_next, etc. With a default implementation based on a spinlock, and the capable SMP architectures could define an optimized version.
Then Alpha could do whatever flushing is required. But please do not scatter memory barrier instructions all around the kernel.
-- Manfred
- 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/
|  |