Re: [RFC PATCH] Writer-biased low-latency rwlock v8

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> 
> Now, let me explain why I need at least not one, but _four different_
> contention bits. Simply because there are four types of contention, one
> for each execution context which may take the read lock. (irq, softirq,
> non-preemptable, preemptable)

No. You need _one_ contention bit in the fast-path.

Then, as you get into the slow-path, you can decide on four different 
behaviours.

Quite frankly, I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. I don't 
think I'd take anything from you, since you seem to have a really hard 
time separating out the issue of fast-path and slow-path. So I'm simply 
not going to bother, and I'm not going to expect to merge your work. 

Sorry, but it simply isn't worth my time or effort.

			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/