From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Jared Hulbert <jaredeh@gmail.com>
Cc: Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mtd <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
"Jörn Engel" <joern@logfs.org>,
tim.bird@am.sony.com, cotte@de.ibm.com, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] AXFS: axfs_inode.c
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:12:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200808211712.27146.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6934efce0808210806r701f2e3bo677d2bd2da78faec@mail.gmail.com>
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Jared Hulbert wrote:
> > Have you seen any benefit of the rwsem over a simple mutex? I would guess
> > that you can never even get into the situation where you get concurrent
> > readers since I haven't found a single down_read() in your code, only
> > downgrade_write()
>
> We implemented a rwsem here because you can get concurrent readers.
> My understanding is that downgrade_write() puts the rewem into the
> same state as down_read(). Â Am I mistaken?
Your interpretation of downgrade_write is correct, but if every thread
always does
down_write();
serialized_code();
downgrade_write();
parallel_code();
up_read();
Then you still won't have any concurrency, because each thread trying
to down_write() will be blocked until the previous one has done its up_read(),
causing parallel_code() to be serialized as well.
In addition to that, I'd still consider it better to use a simple mutex
if parallel_code() is a much faster operation than serialized_code(), as it
is in your case, where only the memcpy is parallel and that is much slower
than the deflate.
Arnd <><
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-21 15:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-21 5:45 [PATCH 04/10] AXFS: axfs_inode.c Jared Hulbert
2008-08-21 8:35 ` Carsten Otte
2008-08-21 11:35 ` Arnd Bergmann
2008-08-21 12:17 ` Arnd Bergmann
2008-08-21 15:06 ` Jared Hulbert
2008-08-21 15:12 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2008-08-22 2:22 ` Phillip Lougher
2008-08-22 3:23 ` Jared Hulbert
2008-08-22 3:29 ` Phillip Lougher
2008-08-22 10:00 ` Arnd Bergmann
2008-08-22 17:08 ` Phillip Lougher
2008-08-22 17:19 ` Jörn Engel
2008-08-22 18:04 ` Jared Hulbert
2008-08-22 0:21 ` Phillip Lougher
2008-08-22 3:27 ` Jared Hulbert
2008-08-22 3:46 ` Phillip Lougher
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=200808211712.27146.arnd@arndb.de \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=cotte@de.ibm.com \
--cc=jaredeh@gmail.com \
--cc=joern@logfs.org \
--cc=linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=tim.bird@am.sony.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).