On 03/05, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
> On 03/03/13 01:06, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 03/02, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> >>
> >> My version would be slower if it needs to take the
> >> slow path in a reentrant way, but I'm not sure it matters either :)
> >
> > I'd say, this doesn't matter at all, simply
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 03/03/13 01:06, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 03/02, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>>>
>>> My version would be slower if it needs to take the
>>> slow path in a reentrant way, but I'm not sure it matters either :)
>>
>> I'd say, this doesn't matter
On 03/03/13 01:06, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/02, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>>
>> My version would be slower if it needs to take the
>> slow path in a reentrant way, but I'm not sure it matters either :)
>
> I'd say, this doesn't matter at all, simply because this can only happen
> if we race wit
On 03/02, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>
> My version would be slower if it needs to take the
> slow path in a reentrant way, but I'm not sure it matters either :)
I'd say, this doesn't matter at all, simply because this can only happen
if we race with the active writer.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from
On 03/02, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
> On 02/03/13 02:28, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Lai, I didn't read this discussion except the code posted by Michel.
> > I'll try to read this patch carefully later, but I'd like to ask
> > a couple of questions.
> >
> > This version looks more complex than Michel's,
On 02/03/13 02:28, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Lai, I didn't read this discussion except the code posted by Michel.
> I'll try to read this patch carefully later, but I'd like to ask
> a couple of questions.
>
> This version looks more complex than Michel's, why? Just curious, I
> am trying to understa
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 2:28 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Lai, I didn't read this discussion except the code posted by Michel.
> I'll try to read this patch carefully later, but I'd like to ask
> a couple of questions.
>
> This version looks more complex than Michel's, why? Just curious, I
> am tryin
On 03/01/2013 11:23 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey, guys and Oleg (yes, I'm singling you out ;p because you're that
> awesome.)
>
> On Sat, Mar 02, 2013 at 01:44:02AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> Performance:
>> We only focus on the performance of the read site. this read site's fast path
>> is just
Lai, I didn't read this discussion except the code posted by Michel.
I'll try to read this patch carefully later, but I'd like to ask
a couple of questions.
This version looks more complex than Michel's, why? Just curious, I
am trying to understand what I missed. See
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kern
Hey, guys and Oleg (yes, I'm singling you out ;p because you're that
awesome.)
On Sat, Mar 02, 2013 at 01:44:02AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Performance:
> We only focus on the performance of the read site. this read site's fast path
> is just preempt_disable() + __this_cpu_read/inc() + arch_sp
>From c63f2be9a4cf7106a521dda169a0e14f8e4f7e3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lai Jiangshan
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:14:27 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] lglock: add read-preference local-global rwlock
Current lglock is not read-preference, so it can't be used on some cases
which read-preferenc
11 matches
Mail list logo
