lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] rwsem: reduce spinlock contention in wakeup code path

* Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com> wrote:

> > I think Waiman's patches (even the later ones) made the queued rwlocks
> > be a side-by-side implementation with the old rwlocks, and I think
> > that was just being unnecessarily careful. It might be useful for
> > testing to have a config option to switch between the two, but we
> > might as well go all the way.
>
> It is not actually a side-by-side implementation. A user can choose
> either regular rwlock or the queue one, but never both by setting a
> configuration parameter. However, I now think that maybe we should do it
> the lockref way by pre-determining it on a per-architecture level
> without user visible configuration option.

Well, as I pointed it out to you during review, such a Kconfig driven
locking API choice is a no-go!

What I suggested instead: there's absolutely no problem with providing a
better rwlock_t implementation, backed with numbers and all that.

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-01 10:01    [W:0.320 / U:0.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site