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)
>
> Otherwise, at first glance looks correct...
>
> However, I still think that FALLBACK_BASE only adds the unnecessary
> complications. But even if I am right this is subjective of course, please
> feel free to ignore.
OK, I kill FALLBACK_BASE in later patch.
>
> And btw, I am not sure about lg->lock_dep_map, perhaps we should use
> fallback_rwlock->dep_map ?
Use either one is OK.
>
> 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.
> Oleg.
>
> --
> 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/
>
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
