Christoph Lameter wrote:
I wonder if it may not be better to use a seqlock for the tree_lock? A
seqlock requires no writes at all if the tree has not been changed. RCU
still requires the incrementing of a (local) counter.
Ah, but the seqlock's write side will cause cacheline bouncing in
the
I wonder if it may not be better to use a seqlock for the tree_lock? A
seqlock requires no writes at all if the tree has not been changed. RCU
still requires the incrementing of a (local) counter.
Using seqlocks would require reworking the readers so that they can
retry. Seqlocks provide already
5/7
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Make radix tree lookups safe to be performed without locks.
Readers are protected against nodes being deleted by using RCU
based freeing. Readers are protected against new node insertion
by using memory barriers to ensure the node itself will be
properly written befo
3 matches
Mail list logo
