Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] qrwlock: A queue read/write lock implementation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> What I have in mind is to have 2 separate rwlock initializers - one for 
> fair and one for reader-bias behavior. So the lock owners can decide 
> what behavior do they want with a one line change.

That's definitely a nicer patch, if it will work.  I was imagining that,
even for a single (type of) lock, only a few uses require reader bias
(because they might be recursive, or are in an interrupt), but you'd
want most read_lock sites to be fair.

Deciding on a per-lock basis means that one potentially recursive call
means you can't use fair queueing anywhere.

I was hoping that the number of necessary unfair calls would
be small enough that making the read_lock default fair and
only marking the unfair call sites would be enough.

But I don't really know until doing a survey of the calls.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux