On 18.03.24 17:05, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 18.03.2024 17:00, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 18.03.24 16:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.03.2024 08:20, Juergen Gross wrote:
@@ -36,14 +36,16 @@ void queue_write_lock_slowpath(rwlock_t *lock);
static inline bool _is_write_locked_by_me(unsigned int cnts)
On 18.03.2024 17:00, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 18.03.24 16:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 14.03.2024 08:20, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> @@ -36,14 +36,16 @@ void queue_write_lock_slowpath(rwlock_t *lock);
>>>
>>> static inline bool _is_write_locked_by_me(unsigned int cnts)
>>> {
>>> -
On 18.03.24 16:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.03.2024 08:20, Juergen Gross wrote:
The rwlock handling is limiting the number of cpus to 4095 today. The
main reason is the use of the atomic_t data type for the main lock
handling, which needs 2 bits for the locking state (writer waiting or
write
On 14.03.2024 08:20, Juergen Gross wrote:
> The rwlock handling is limiting the number of cpus to 4095 today. The
> main reason is the use of the atomic_t data type for the main lock
> handling, which needs 2 bits for the locking state (writer waiting or
> write locked), 12 bits for the id of a
The rwlock handling is limiting the number of cpus to 4095 today. The
main reason is the use of the atomic_t data type for the main lock
handling, which needs 2 bits for the locking state (writer waiting or
write locked), 12 bits for the id of a possible writer, and a 12 bit
counter for readers.
