Re: [RFC PATCH] Fair low-latency rwlock v5

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> 
> It strikes me that Intel has a nice (probably slow?) cmpxchg16b
> instruction on x86_64. Therefore, we could atomically update 128 bits,
> which gives the following table :

Stop this crapola.

Take a look at the rwsem thing I pointed you to. After you understand 
that, come back.

The WHOLE POINT of that thing was to use only 32-bit atomics on the hot 
path. Don't even start think9ing about cmpxchg16b. If you cannot do your 
atomics in 32-bit, they're broken.

Please. I realize that the rwsem implementation I did is subtle. But 
really. Spend the time to understand it.

			Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/