Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 12:50:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 12:50:36 -0400 Received: from colorfullife.com ([216.156.138.34]:65297 "EHLO colorfullife.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 12:50:21 -0400 Message-ID: <000901c150e2$97765470$010411ac@local> From: "Manfred Spraul" To: "Richard Henderson" Cc: , "\"Paul E. McKenney\"" Subject: Re: RFC: patch to allow lock-free traversal of lists with insertion Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 18:51:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 07:03:37PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > > I don't *like* making Alpha's wmb() stronger, but it is the > > only solution which doesn't touch common code. > > It's not a "solution" at all. It's so heavy weight you'd be > much better off with locks. Just use the damned rmb_me_harder. rmb_me_harder? smp_mb__{before,after}_{atomic_dec,clear_bit} are already ugly enough. What about hiding all these details in the list access macros? list_insert, list_get_next, etc. With a default implementation based on a spinlock, and the capable SMP architectures could define an optimized version. Then Alpha could do whatever flushing is required. But please do not scatter memory barrier instructions all around the kernel. -- Manfred - 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/