From: "George Spelvin" <linux@horizon.com>
To: linux@horizon.com, waiman.long@hp.com
Cc: JBeulich@novell.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org,
tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] qrwlock: A queue read/write lock implementation
Date: 19 Jul 2013 17:11:48 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130719211148.10251.qmail@science.horizon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51E95E9F.4070507@hp.com>
> What I have in mind is to have 2 separate rwlock initializers - one for
> fair and one for reader-bias behavior. So the lock owners can decide
> what behavior do they want with a one line change.
That's definitely a nicer patch, if it will work. I was imagining that,
even for a single (type of) lock, only a few uses require reader bias
(because they might be recursive, or are in an interrupt), but you'd
want most read_lock sites to be fair.
Deciding on a per-lock basis means that one potentially recursive call
means you can't use fair queueing anywhere.
I was hoping that the number of necessary unfair calls would
be small enough that making the read_lock default fair and
only marking the unfair call sites would be enough.
But I don't really know until doing a survey of the calls.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-19 21:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-18 12:55 [PATCH RFC 1/2] qrwlock: A queue read/write lock implementation George Spelvin
2013-07-18 13:43 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-18 18:46 ` George Spelvin
2013-07-19 15:43 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-19 21:11 ` George Spelvin [this message]
2013-07-19 21:35 ` Waiman Long
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-07-13 1:34 [PATCH RFC 0/2] qrwlock: Introducing a " Waiman Long
2013-07-13 1:34 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] qrwlock: A " Waiman Long
2013-07-15 14:39 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-07-15 20:44 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-15 22:31 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-07-16 1:19 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-18 7:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-07-18 7:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-07-18 13:40 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-18 13:40 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-19 8:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-07-19 8:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-07-19 15:30 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-19 15:30 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-22 10:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-07-22 10:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-07-24 0:03 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-24 0:03 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-18 10:22 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-07-18 14:19 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-21 5:42 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-07-21 5:42 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-07-23 23:54 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-23 23:54 ` Waiman Long
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=20130719211148.10251.qmail@science.horizon.com \
--to=linux@horizon.com \
--cc=JBeulich@novell.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=waiman.long@hp.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).