Bob Miller wrote:
>
> Below is a patch for i386 that replaces the global spin lock semaphore_lock,
> with the rwlock_t embedded in the wait_queue_head_t in the struct semaphore.
>
Looks sane. In practice, the speedup is unmeasurable, but...
> ...
> + unsigned long flags;
> + wq_write_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait.lock, flags);
> - spin_lock_irq(&semaphore_lock);
I rather dislike spin_lock_irq(), because it's fragile (makes
assumptions about the caller's state). But in this case,
it's probably a reasonable micro-optimisation to not have to
save the flags. Nobody should be calling down() with local
interrupts disabled.
> ...
> +/*
> + * Same as __wake_up but called with the wait_queue_head_t lock held
> + * in at least read mode.
> + */
> +void __wake_up_locked(wait_queue_head_t *q, unsigned int mode, int nr)
> +{
> + if (q) {
I don't think we need to test `q' here. It's a new function,
and we don't need to support broken callers. So __wake_up_locked()
can become a macro direct call to __wake_up_common().
> + __wake_up_common(q, mode, nr, 0);
This one breaks the camel's back :)
Let's un-inline __wake_up_common and EXPORT_SYMBOL it.
It'd be good if you could also verify that the code still
works when the use-rwlocks-for-waitqueues option is turned
on. (wait.h:USE_RW_WAIT_QUEUE_SPINLOCK)
-
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 31 2002 - 21:01:40 EST