Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:47:56 -0500 (EST) | From | Alan Stern <> | Subject | Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync |
| |
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Ok, synchronize_xxx() passed 1 hour rcutorture test on dual P-III. > > It behaves the same as srcu but optimized for writers. The fast path > for synchronize_xxx() is mutex_lock() + atomic_read() + mutex_unlock(). > The slow path is __wait_event(), no polling. However, the reader does > atomic inc/dec on lock/unlock, and the counters are not per-cpu. > > Jens, is it ok for you? Alan, Paul, what is your opinion?
Given that you aren't using per-cpu data, why not just rely on a spinlock? Then everything will be simple and easy to verify, with no need to worry about atomic instructions or memory barriers.
Alan
- 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/
| |