[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCHv5 2/2] memory barrier: adding smp_mb__after_lock
Herbert Xu a écrit :
> Mathieu Desnoyers <> 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,

+1 :)

Do you mean using a spinlock instead or what ?

Also, how many arches are able to have a true __read_lock()
(or __spin_lock() if that matters), without acquire semantic ?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-07-03 17:41    [W:0.052 / U:1.032 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site