Re: [PATCHv5 2/2] memory barrier: adding smp_mb__after_lock

Herbert Xu
2009-07-03T15:30:26Z

Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> wrote:
>
> Why don't we create a read_lock without acquire semantic instead (e.g.
> read_lock_nomb(), or something with a better name like __read_lock()) ?
> On architectures where memory barriers are needed to provide the acquire
> semantic, it would be faster to do :
>
> __read_lock();
> smp_mb();
>
> than :
>
> read_lock(); <- e.g. lwsync + isync or something like that
> smp_mb(); <- full sync.

Hmm, why do we even care when read_lock should just die?

Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt