On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 17:36 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 15:14 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidl...@hp.com> wrote: > > > > > > - increment the counter at queue_lock() as we always end up calling > > > queue_me() which adds the element to the list. Upon any error, > > > queue_unlock() is called for housekeeping, for which we decrement > > > to mach the increment done in queue_lock(). > > > > > > - decrement the counter at __unqueue_me() to reflect when an element is > > > removed from the queue for wakeup related purposes. > > > > I still hate this whole separate counter thing. It seems really annoying. > > > > If re-ordering things didn't work out, then why can't just the counter > > we *already* have in the spinlock itself work as the counter? Your > > counter update logic seems to basically match when you take the > > spinlock anyway. > > So the following has passed all testing, just like the atomics variant. > Thoughts?
Do you have similar performance numbers for comparison? I presume they were *very* similar to the atomics version - I think you hinted at that in a previous post? -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel -- 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/
