On 03/05, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
> On 03/03/13 01:20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 03/02, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >>
> >> +void lg_rwlock_local_read_unlock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
> >> +{
> >> + switch (__this_cpu_read(*lgrw->reader_refcnt)) {
> >> + case 1:
> >> + __this_cpu_write(*lgrw->reader_refcnt, 0);
> >> + lg_local_unlock(&lgrw->lglock);
> >> + return;
> >> + case FALLBACK_BASE:
> >> + __this_cpu_write(*lgrw->reader_refcnt, 0);
> >> + read_unlock(&lgrw->fallback_rwlock);
> >> + rwlock_release(&lg->lock_dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
> >
> > I guess "case 1:" should do rwlock_release() too.
>
> Already do it in "lg_local_unlock(&lgrw->lglock);" before it returns.
> (I like reuse old code)
Yes, I was wrong thanks. Another case when I didn't notice that you
re-use the regular lg_ code...
> > We need rwlock_acquire_read() even in the fast-path, and this acquire_read
> > should be paired with rwlock_acquire() in _write_lock(), but it does
> > spin_acquire(lg->lock_dep_map). Yes, currently this is the same (afaics)
> > but perhaps fallback_rwlock->dep_map would be more clean.
>
> I can't tell which one is better. I try to use fallback_rwlock->dep_map later.
I am not sure which one should be better too, please check.
Again, I forgot that _write_lock/unlock use lg_global_*() code.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
