Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [DOCUMENTATION] Revised Unreliable Kernel Locking Guide | Date | Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:32:37 +1100 |
| |
In message <20031215222213.GA1270@us.ibm.com> you write: > > How do we get rid of read locks? Getting rid of read locks > > means that writers may be changing the list underneath the readers. > > That is actually quite simple: > > Looks good! Upon rereading... Does "wmb()" want to be "smp_wmb()"?
Yes, but I didn't want to turn this into a document on memory barriers: you'll note that I almost avoided it entirely.
> Again, upon rereading, "read Read Copy Update code" probably wants to > be "real Read Copy Update code". I moused it this time, given > my past record with eyeballing. ;-)
Fixed.
> > Now, because the 'read lock' in RCU is simply disabling preemption, a > > caller which always preemption disabled between calling > disables preemption
Ah, I inserted a 'has' as well (a caller which always has preemption disabled...). The implication that the caller probably has preempt disabled as a side effect of being in an interrupt or holding a spinlock.
> > I've uploaded a new draft with these and other fixes... > > Good stuff, thank you!!!
Hey, thanks for the review!
Cheers, Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |