On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
But, the whole intention behind removing the parts depending on the
recursive property of rwlocks would be to make it easier to make rwlocks
fair (going forward) right? Then, that won't work for CPU
On 02/19/2013 03:10 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
But, the whole intention behind removing the parts depending on the
recursive property of rwlocks would be to make it easier to make rwlocks
fair (going
I wouldn't go that far... ;-) Unfairness is not a show-stopper right?
IMHO, the warning/documentation should suffice for anybody wanting to
try out this locking scheme for other use-cases.
I presume that by 'fairness' you mean 'write preference'?
I'd not sure how difficult it would be, but
On 02/19/2013 04:12 PM, David Laight wrote:
I wouldn't go that far... ;-) Unfairness is not a show-stopper right?
IMHO, the warning/documentation should suffice for anybody wanting to
try out this locking scheme for other use-cases.
I presume that by 'fairness' you mean 'write preference'?
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Some important design requirements and considerations:
-
1. Scalable synchronization at the reader-side, especially in the fast-path
Any
On 02/18/2013 09:53 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Some important design requirements and considerations:
-
[...]
+/*
+ * Invoked by atomic hotplug
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 02/18/2013 09:53 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
I am wondering though, if you could take care of recursive uses in
get/put_online_cpus_atomic() instead of doing it as a property of your
rwlock:
On 02/18/2013 10:51 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 02/18/2013 09:53 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
I am wondering though, if you could take care of recursive uses in
get/put_online_cpus_atomic() instead
