Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync

[Alan Stern]

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> Ok, synchronize_xxx() passed 1 hour rcutorture test on dual P-III.
> 
> It behaves the same as srcu but optimized for writers. The fast path
> for synchronize_xxx() is mutex_lock() + atomic_read() + mutex_unlock().
> The slow path is __wait_event(), no polling. However, the reader does
> atomic inc/dec on lock/unlock, and the counters are not per-cpu.
> 
> Jens, is it ok for you? Alan, Paul, what is your opinion?

Given that you aren't using per-cpu data, why not just rely on a spinlock?  
Then everything will be simple and easy to verify, with no need to worry 
about atomic instructions or memory barriers.

Alan

-
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/