linux-embedded.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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().  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 <><

  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).