On 2016年06月14日 18:40, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 02:11:48PM +0800, xinhui wrote:
On 2016年06月08日 17:22, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 06:09:08PM +0800, Pan Xinhui wrote:
strcut __qrwlock has different layout in big endian machine. we need set
the __qrwlock->wmode to NULL, and the address is not &lock->cnts in big
endian machine.
Do as what read unlock does. we are lucky that the __qrwlock->wmode's
val is _QW_LOCKED.
Doesn't this have wider implications for the qrwlocks, for example:
while ((cnts & _QW_WMASK) == _QW_LOCKED) { ... }
would actually end up looking at the wrong field of the lock?
I does not clearly understand your idea. :(
That's because I'm talking rubbish :) Sorry, I completely confused myself.
Locking is bad enough on its own, but add big-endian to the mix and I'm
all done.
Shouldn't we just remove the #ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN stuff from __qrwlock,
given that all the struct members are u8?
No. that makes codes complex. for example
struct __qrwlock lock;
WRITE_ONCE(lock->wmode, _QW_WAITING);
if (atomic_(&lock->cnts) == _QW_WAITING) {
do_something();
}
IF you remove the #ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN stuff from __qrwlock.
codes above obviously will break. And we already have such code.
I was wondering more along the lines of having one definition of the data
structure, but then defining _QW_* differently depending on endianness
(i.e. add a << 24 when big-endian). That way queued_write_unlock can
make sense. And I review all the code, there is not much code to be changed.
I will work out one patch based on your idea :)
stay like it is (having an arch override to handle the big-endian case
is incredibly ugly).
I admit that. HOWEVER from the view of performance, having an arch override is acceptable.
thanks
xinhui
Will
--
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
