Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 Jan 2014 10:50:41 -0500 | From | Waiman Long <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v11 0/4] Introducing a queue read/write lock implementation |
| |
On 01/30/2014 10:43 AM, Waiman Long wrote: > On 01/30/2014 10:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 02:04:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> So I took out that ugly union and rewrote the code to be mostly >>> atomic_*(), gcc generates acceptable code and its smaller too. >>> >>> 824 0 0 824 338 >>> defconfig-build/kernel/locking/qrwlock.o >>> 776 0 0 776 308 >>> defconfig-build/kernel/locking/qrwlock.o >>> >>> I don't think I wrecked it, but I've not actually tried it yet. >> I did wreck it.. :-) >> >> The below is still small and actually works. >> >> --- >> arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 >> arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h | 2 >> arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock_types.h | 4 >> b/arch/x86/include/asm/qrwlock.h | 18 +++ >> b/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h | 174 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> b/include/asm-generic/qrwlock_types.h | 17 +++ >> b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c | 157 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> kernel/Kconfig.locks | 7 + >> kernel/locking/Makefile | 1 >> 9 files changed, 381 insertions(+) >> >> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig >> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig >> > > OK, I see what you are trying to do. I can apply the change to my > patch & send out v12. So I presume that you are now OK with it. Can I > add your sign-off line? > > -Longman > >
One more thing, I often see line like
#define queue_write_unlock queue_write_unlock
So exactly what effect does this macro have?
-Longman
| |