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
2 matches
Mail list logo
