On 03/02, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > > +void lg_rwlock_local_read_unlock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw) > +{ > + switch (__this_cpu_read(*lgrw->reader_refcnt)) { > + case 1: > + __this_cpu_write(*lgrw->reader_refcnt, 0); > + lg_local_unlock(&lgrw->lglock); > + return; > + case FALLBACK_BASE: > + __this_cpu_write(*lgrw->reader_refcnt, 0); > + read_unlock(&lgrw->fallback_rwlock); > + rwlock_release(&lg->lock_dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
I guess "case 1:" should do rwlock_release() too. Otherwise, at first glance looks correct... However, I still think that FALLBACK_BASE only adds the unnecessary complications. But even if I am right this is subjective of course, please feel free to ignore. And btw, I am not sure about lg->lock_dep_map, perhaps we should use fallback_rwlock->dep_map ? We need rwlock_acquire_read() even in the fast-path, and this acquire_read should be paired with rwlock_acquire() in _write_lock(), but it does spin_acquire(lg->lock_dep_map). Yes, currently this is the same (afaics) but perhaps fallback_rwlock->dep_map would be more clean. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/