On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 11:21 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 03:09:01PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>
> > +#else
> > +static bool rwsem_optimistic_spin(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > +{
> > + return false;
> > +}
> > +#endif
>
> On the mutex side we guard this with MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER, do we want to
> use that here too?
I thought of it, but hated adding mutex naming to rwsem code -- we
already do it for cpu_relax() thanks to s390.
MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER depends on SMP && !DEBUG_MUTEXES.
Right now rwsem optimistic spinning depends on SMP && RWSEM_XCHGADD_ALGORITHM.
It might sense to add RWSEM_SPIN_ON_OWNER to encapsulate what we already
have. I don't think we want DEBUG_MUTEX dependencies in rwsems. Would
you accept such thing?
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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/
