lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] spinlock: New spinlock_refcount.h for lockless update of refcount
On 06/29/2013 01:45 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Sorry for not commenting earlier, I was traveling and keeping email to
> a minimum..
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Waiman Long<Waiman.Long@hp.com> wrote:
>> This patch introduces a new spinlock_refcount.h header file to be
>> included by kernel code that want to do a lockless update of reference
>> count protected by a spinlock.
> So I really like the concept, but the implementation is a mess, and
> tries to do too much, while actually achieving too little.
>
> I do not believe you should care about debug spinlocks at all, and
> just leave them be. Have a simple fallback code that defaults to
> regular counts and spinlocks, and have any debug cases just use that.

I was concern that people might want to have the same behavior even when
spinlock debugging was on. Apparently, this is not really needed. Now I
can just disable the optimization and fall back to the old path when
spinlock debugging is on.

> But more importantly, I think this needs to be architecture-specific,
> and using<linux/spinlock_refcount.h> to try to do some generic 64-bit
> cmpxchg() version is a bad bad idea.

Yes, I can put the current implementation into
asm-generic/spinlock_refcount.h. Now I need to put an
asm/spinlock_refcount.h into every arch's include/asm directory. Right?
I don't think there is a mechanism in the build script to create a
symlink from asm to generic-asm when a header file is missing. Is it the
general rule that we should have a linux/spinlock_refcount.h that
include asm/spinlock_refcount.h instead of including
asm/spinlock_refcount.h directly?

> We have several architectures coming up that have memory transaction
> support, and the "spinlock with refcount" is a perfect candidate for a
> transactional memory implementation. So when introducing a new atomic
> like this that is very performance-critical and used for some very
> core code, I really think architectures would want to make their own
> optimized versions.
>
> These things should also not be inlined, I think.
>
> So I think the concept is good, but I think the implementation needs
> more thought.
>
> Linus

Thank for the comment. I will try to come up with a version that is
acceptable to all stakeholders.

Regards,
Longman



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-06-29 22:41    [W:0.138 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site