Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758089AbZGCPwZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:52:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757487AbZGCPwB (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:52:01 -0400 Received: from tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.4]:41475 "EHLO tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757031AbZGCPv7 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:51:59 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgoFAKHETUpMQWU3/2dsb2JhbACBUMx0hBIFgTo Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:47:00 -0400 From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: Eric Dumazet Cc: Herbert Xu , mingo@elte.hu, jolsa@redhat.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, fbl@redhat.com, nhorman@redhat.com, davem@redhat.com, htejun@gmail.com, jarkao2@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, davidel@xmailserver.org, Paul.McKenney@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 2/2] memory barrier: adding smp_mb__after_lock Message-ID: <20090703154700.GD10256@Krystal> References: <20090703152951.GA28837@gondor.apana.org.au> <4A4E25BB.8060408@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT In-Reply-To: <4A4E25BB.8060408@gmail.com> X-Editor: vi X-Info: http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080 X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.21.3-grsec (i686) X-Uptime: 11:41:37 up 125 days, 12:07, 4 users, load average: 0.71, 0.84, 0.70 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1256 Lines: 43 * Eric Dumazet (eric.dumazet@gmail.com) wrote: > Herbert Xu a ?crit : > > Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > >> Why don't we create a read_lock without acquire semantic instead (e.g. > >> read_lock_nomb(), or something with a better name like __read_lock()) ? > >> On architectures where memory barriers are needed to provide the acquire > >> semantic, it would be faster to do : > >> > >> __read_lock(); > >> smp_mb(); > >> > >> than : > >> > >> read_lock(); <- e.g. lwsync + isync or something like that > >> smp_mb(); <- full sync. > > > > Hmm, why do we even care when read_lock should just die? > > > > Cheers, > > +1 :) > > Do you mean using a spinlock instead or what ? > I think he meant RCU. > Also, how many arches are able to have a true __read_lock() > (or __spin_lock() if that matters), without acquire semantic ? At least PowerPC, MIPS, recent ARM, alpha. Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68 -- 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/