Home » Mailing list archives » linux-kernel » 2008 » August » 19

Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
[view in full thread]
From: Linus Torvalds
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 9:48 am

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

Stop this crapola.

Take a look at the rwsem thing I pointed you to. After you understand 
that, come back.

The WHOLE POINT of that thing was to use only 32-bit atomics on the hot 
path. Don't even start think9ing about cmpxchg16b. If you cannot do your 
atomics in 32-bit, they're broken.

Please. I realize that the rwsem implementation I did is subtle. But 
really. Spend the time to understand it.

			Linus
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] x86_64 : support atomic ops with 64 bits integer v ..., Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sat Aug 16, 12:39 am)
Re: [PATCH] x86_64 : support atomic ops with 64 bits integ ..., H. Peter Anvin, (Sat Aug 16, 8:04 am)
Re: [PATCH] x86_64 : support atomic ops with 64 bits integ ..., Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sat Aug 16, 8:43 am)
Re: [PATCH] x86_64 : support atomic ops with 64 bits integ ..., Linus Torvalds, (Sat Aug 16, 10:30 am)
[RFC PATCH] Fair rwlock, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sat Aug 16, 2:19 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair rwlock, Linus Torvalds, (Sat Aug 16, 2:33 pm)
[RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v3, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sun Aug 17, 12:53 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v3, Linus Torvalds, (Sun Aug 17, 9:17 am)
[RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sun Aug 17, 12:10 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5 (updated benchm ..., Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sun Aug 17, 2:30 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Linus Torvalds, (Mon Aug 18, 11:59 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Paul E. McKenney, (Mon Aug 18, 4:25 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Mon Aug 18, 11:04 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Tue Aug 19, 12:33 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Tue Aug 19, 2:06 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Linus Torvalds, (Tue Aug 19, 9:48 am)
[RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Thu Aug 21, 1:50 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Aug 21, 2:00 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Aug 21, 2:15 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, H. Peter Anvin, (Thu Aug 21, 2:26 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Aug 21, 2:41 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Aug 21, 3:22 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Fri Aug 22, 10:09 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Linus Torvalds, (Sat Aug 23, 11:02 am)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sat Aug 23, 1:30 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8, Linus Torvalds, (Sat Aug 23, 2:40 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5, Peter Zijlstra, (Mon Aug 25, 12:20 pm)