Date: 13 Apr 2015 05:26:05 -0400
Message-ID: <20150413092605.2469.qmail@ns.horizon.com>
From: "George Spelvin" <linux@horizon.com>
To: linux@horizon.com, peterz@infradead.org
Subject: Re: Two other ways to do latched seqcounts
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20150413073510.GC5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 703
Lines: 15

> I'm assuming you're writing to me because of the latched rb-tree;
> because that's the most recent related thing I posted ;-)

Basically yes, although it was the documentation you added to the
latched seqlock code in particular.

I haven't checked the users of your rb-tree code to see how large and
frequently read the trees are, but if a read is expensive, then avoiding
retries by incrementing the seqlock twice per update starts to become
interesting.
--
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/