On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 15:44 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
quoted text
> 
> * Alpha has an optimization for the uniprocessor case, where the atomic
> instructions get turned into nonatomic additions. The spinlock based
> version uses no locks on UP but disables interrupts for reasons I don't
> understand (nothing running at interrupt time should try to access an rwsem).
> Should the generic version do the same as Alpha?

I've seen drivers in the past do trylocks at interrupt time ... tho I
agree it sucks.

quoted text
> * Is there any architecture that would still benefit from having a separate
> rwsem implementation? AFAICT all the remaining ones are just variations of
> the same concept of using cmpxchg (or xadd in case of x86), which is what
> atomics typically end up doing anyway.

It depends how sensitive rwsems are. 

The "generic" variant based on atomic's and cmpxchg on powerpc is
sub-optimal in the sense that it has stronger memory barriers that would
be necessary (atomic_inc_return for example has both acquire and
release).

But that vs. one more pile of inline asm, we decided it wasn't hot
enough a spot for us to care back then.

Cheers,
Ben.

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/