Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 Jul 2009 23:29:51 +0800 | From | Herbert Xu <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |