Re: [rfc] "fair" rw spinlocks

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> Well the simple thing I tried earlier was a per-cpu array of nesting
> counter there. It's not _too_ expensive, but it does add another cacheline
> access and branch there. It seems to work in solving the livelock though.

So how did you do the nesting counter? Afaik, it needs to be something 
like

	local_irq_save(flags);
	if (!get_cpu_var(tasklist_counter)++)
		spin_lock(&tasklist_lock);
	local_irq_restore(flags);

on the read_lock side (and the same in reverse on unlock). Which seems 
quite a bit more expensive than what we have now. Especially on UP, but I 
guess you can make it conditional on CONFIG_SMP (but that won't help 
generic kernels).

				Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/