From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Peter Chubb <peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au>
Cc: Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
paulus@samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
tony.luck@intel.com, dsw@gelato.unsw.edu.au, torvalds@osdl.org,
benh@kernel.crashing.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
hch@infradead.org, wli@holomorphy.com, jbarnes@sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1]
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:04:01 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050120130401.GA8061@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16879.29449.734172.893834@wombat.chubb.wattle.id.au>
* Peter Chubb <peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
> I suggest reversing the sense of the macros, and having
> read_can_lock() and write_can_lock()
>
> Meaning:
> read_can_lock() --- a read_lock() would have succeeded
> write_can_lock() --- a write_lock() would have succeeded.
i solved the problem differently in my patch sent to lkml today: i
introduced read_trylock_test()/etc. variants which mirror the semantics
of the trylock primitives and solve the needs of the PREEMPT branch
within kernel/spinlock.c.
Ingo
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Peter Chubb <peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au>
Cc: Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
paulus@samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
tony.luck@intel.com, dsw@gelato.unsw.edu.au, torvalds@osdl.org,
benh@kernel.crashing.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
hch@infradead.org, wli@holomorphy.com, jbarnes@sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1]
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:04:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050120130401.GA8061@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16879.29449.734172.893834@wombat.chubb.wattle.id.au>
* Peter Chubb <peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
> I suggest reversing the sense of the macros, and having
> read_can_lock() and write_can_lock()
>
> Meaning:
> read_can_lock() --- a read_lock() would have succeeded
> write_can_lock() --- a write_lock() would have succeeded.
i solved the problem differently in my patch sent to lkml today: i
introduced read_trylock_test()/etc. variants which mirror the semantics
of the trylock primitives and solve the needs of the PREEMPT branch
within kernel/spinlock.c.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-20 13:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 87+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-01-17 5:50 Horrible regression with -CURRENT from "Don't busy-lock-loop in preemptable spinlocks" patch Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 7:09 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-17 7:33 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 7:50 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-01-17 8:00 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 14:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-18 1:47 ` Darren Williams
2005-01-18 1:47 ` Darren Williams
2005-01-18 4:28 ` Darren Williams
2005-01-18 4:28 ` Darren Williams
2005-01-18 7:08 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-18 7:08 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-19 0:14 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 0:14 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 8:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 8:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 9:18 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 9:18 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-19 9:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 9:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-19 21:43 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-01-19 21:43 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-01-20 2:34 ` [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1] Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 2:34 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 3:01 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 3:01 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 3:18 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 3:18 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-20 3:33 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 3:33 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-20 8:59 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-20 8:59 ` Peter Chubb
2005-01-20 13:04 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2005-01-20 13:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 15:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 15:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:08 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:11 ` [patch 2/3] spinlock fix #2: generalize [spin|rw]lock yielding Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:12 ` [patch 3/3] spinlock fix #3: type-checking spinlock primitives, x86 Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:14 ` [patch] stricter type-checking rwlock " Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:16 ` [patch] minor spinlock cleanups Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:31 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 17:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 17:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 17:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 17:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 18:22 ` [patch, BK-curr] nonintrusive spin-polling loop in kernel/spinlock.c Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 18:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 18:25 ` [patch, BK-curr] rename 'lock' to 'slock' in asm-i386/spinlock.h Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 18:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 23:45 ` [patch, BK-curr] nonintrusive spin-polling loop in kernel/spinlock.c Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 23:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:44 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:05 ` [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1] Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 16:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 17:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 17:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-01-20 17:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 17:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 16:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-20 5:49 ` Horrible regression with -CURRENT from "Don't busy-lock-loop in preemptable spinlocks" patch Grant Grundler
2005-01-20 5:49 ` Grant Grundler
2005-01-17 7:38 ` [PATCH] __get_cpu_var should use __smp_processor_id() not smp_processor_id() Chris Wedgwood
2005-01-17 14:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-17 18:53 ` Chris Wedgwood
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20050120130401.GA8061@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=cw@f00f.org \
--cc=dsw@gelato.unsw.edu.au \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jbarnes@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.