On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 13:46 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 05 May 2014 11:00:44 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > @@ -339,12 +338,14 @@ static int zram_decompress_page(struct zram *zram, char *mem, u32 index) > > > > unsigned long handle; > > > > u16 size; > > > > > > > > - read_lock(&meta->tb_lock); > > > > + while(atomic_cmpxchg(&meta->table[index].state, IDLE, ACCESS) != IDLE) > > > > + cpu_relax(); > > > > + > > > > > > So... this might be dumb question, but this looks like a spinlock > > > implementation. > > > > > > What advantage does this have over a standard spinlock? > > > > I was wondering the same thing. Furthermore by doing this you'll loose > > the benefits of sharing the lock... your numbers do indicate that it is > > for the better. Also, note that hopefully rwlock_t will soon be updated > > to be fair and perform up to par with spinlocks, something which is long > > overdue. So you could reduce the critical region by implementing the > > same granularity, just don't implement your own locking schemes, like > > this. > > It sounds like seqlocks will match this access pattern pretty well? Indeed. And after a closer look, except for zram_slot_free_notify(), that lock is always shared. So, unless fine graining it implies taking the lock exclusively like in this patch (if so, that needs to be explicitly documented in the changelog), we would ideally continue to share it. That _should_ provide nicer performance numbers when using the correct lock. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>