Re: rwsem: down_read_unfair() proposal

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

 



Michel Lespinasse <walken@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I only said it was doable :) Not done with the implementation yet, but I can
> describe the general idea if that helps. The high part of the rwsem is
> decremented by two for each thread holding or trying to acquire a write
> lock;

That would mean you're reducing the capacity of the upper counter by one since
the high part must remain negative if we're to be able to check it for
non-zeroness by checking the sign flag.  That means a maximum of 2^14-1 writers
queued on a 32-bit box (16384), but we can have more threads than that (up to
~32767).

Currently, we can have a maximum of 32767 writers+readers queued as we only
decrement the upper counter by 1 each time.

On a 64-bit box, the limitations go away for all practical purposes.

David

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]