lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] locking: Implement an algorithm choice for Wound-Wait mutexes
From
Date
On 06/13/2018 09:54 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 09:47:44AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> -----
>>
>> +The algorithm (Wait-Die vs Wound-Wait) is chosen using the _is_wait_die
>> +argument to DEFINE_WW_CLASS(). As a rough rule of thumb, use Wound-Wait iff you
>> +typically expect the number of simultaneous competing transactions to be small,
>> +and the rollback cost can be substantial.
>> +
>> Three different ways to acquire locks within the same w/w class. Common
>> definitions for methods #1 and #2:
>>
>> -static DEFINE_WW_CLASS(ww_class);
>> +static DEFINE_WW_CLASS(ww_class, false);
> Minor nit on the api here. Having a "flag" is a royal pain. You have
> to go and look up exactly what that "true/false" means every time you
> run across it in code to figure out what it means. Don't do that if at
> all possible.
>
> Make a new api:
> DEFINE_WW_CLASS_DIE(ww_class);
> instead that then wraps that boolean internally to switch between the
> different types. That way the api is "self-documenting" and we all know
> what is going on without having to dig through a header file.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Good point. I'll update in a v2.

Thanks,

Thomas


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-13 10:35    [W:0.064 / U:5.320 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site