On 2016年06月02日 19:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 12:44:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday, June 2, 2016 6:09:08 PM CEST Pan Xinhui wrote:
diff --git a/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h b/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
index 54a8e65..eadd7a3 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ static inline void queued_read_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock)
*/
static inline void queued_write_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock)
{
- smp_store_release((u8 *)&lock->cnts, 0);
+ (void)atomic_sub_return_release(_QW_LOCKED, &lock->cnts);
}
Isn't this more expensive than the existing version?
Yes, loads. And while this might be a suitable fix for asm-generic, it
will introduce a fairly large regression on x86 (which is currently the
only user of this).
well, to show respect to struct __qrwlock private field.
We can keep smp_store_release((u8 *)&lock->cnts, 0) in little_endian machine.
as this should be quick and no performance issue to all other archs(although there is only 1 now)
BUT, We need use (void)atomic_sub_return_release(_QW_LOCKED, &lock->cnts) in big_endian machine.
because it's bad to export struct __qrwlock and set its private field to NULL.
How about code like below.
static inline void queued_write_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock)
{
#ifdef __BIG_ENDIAN
(void)atomic_sub_return_release(_QW_LOCKED, &lock->cnts);
#else
smp_store_release((u8 *)&lock->cnts, 0);
#endif
}
BUT I think that would make thing a little complex to understand. :(
So at last, in my opinion, I suggest my patch :)
any thoughts?
thanks
xinhui
--
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
