On 10/01/2013 03:33 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Waiman Long<waiman.l...@hp.com> wrote:
I think Waiman's patches (even the later ones) made the queued rwlocks
be a side-by-side implementation with the old rwlocks, and I think
that was just being unnecessarily careful. It might be useful for
testing to have a config option to switch between the two, but we
might as well go all the way.
It is not actually a side-by-side implementation. A user can choose
either regular rwlock or the queue one, but never both by setting a
configuration parameter. However, I now think that maybe we should do it
the lockref way by pre-determining it on a per-architecture level
without user visible configuration option.
Well, as I pointed it out to you during review, such a Kconfig driven
locking API choice is a no-go!
What I suggested instead: there's absolutely no problem with providing a
better rwlock_t implementation, backed with numbers and all that.
Thanks,
Ingo
Yes, this is what I am planning to do. The next version of my qrwlock
patch will force the switch to queue rwlock for x86 architecture. The
other architectures have to be done separately.
-Longman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
