lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V2] lglock: add read-preference local-global rwlock
On 03/05, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
> On 03/03/13 01:20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 03/02, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >>
> >> +void lg_rwlock_local_read_unlock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
> >> +{
> >> + switch (__this_cpu_read(*lgrw->reader_refcnt)) {
> >> + case 1:
> >> + __this_cpu_write(*lgrw->reader_refcnt, 0);
> >> + lg_local_unlock(&lgrw->lglock);
> >> + return;
> >> + case FALLBACK_BASE:
> >> + __this_cpu_write(*lgrw->reader_refcnt, 0);
> >> + read_unlock(&lgrw->fallback_rwlock);
> >> + rwlock_release(&lg->lock_dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
> >
> > I guess "case 1:" should do rwlock_release() too.
>
> Already do it in "lg_local_unlock(&lgrw->lglock);" before it returns.
> (I like reuse old code)

Yes, I was wrong thanks. Another case when I didn't notice that you
re-use the regular lg_ code...

> > We need rwlock_acquire_read() even in the fast-path, and this acquire_read
> > should be paired with rwlock_acquire() in _write_lock(), but it does
> > spin_acquire(lg->lock_dep_map). Yes, currently this is the same (afaics)
> > but perhaps fallback_rwlock->dep_map would be more clean.
>
> I can't tell which one is better. I try to use fallback_rwlock->dep_map later.

I am not sure which one should be better too, please check.

Again, I forgot that _write_lock/unlock use lg_global_*() code.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-03-05 18:21    [W:0.379 / U:0.388 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site