Re: [PATCH] zram: remove global tb_lock by using lock-free CAS

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 05 May 2014 11:00:44 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@xxxxxx> wrote:

> > > @@ -339,12 +338,14 @@ static int zram_decompress_page(struct zram *zram, char *mem, u32 index)
> > >  	unsigned long handle;
> > >  	u16 size;
> > >  
> > > -	read_lock(&meta->tb_lock);
> > > +	while(atomic_cmpxchg(&meta->table[index].state, IDLE, ACCESS) != IDLE)
> > > +		cpu_relax();
> > > +
> > 
> > So... this might be dumb question, but this looks like a spinlock
> > implementation.
> > 
> > What advantage does this have over a standard spinlock?
> 
> I was wondering the same thing. Furthermore by doing this you'll loose
> the benefits of sharing the lock... your numbers do indicate that it is
> for the better. Also, note that hopefully rwlock_t will soon be updated
> to be fair and perform up to par with spinlocks, something which is long
> overdue. So you could reduce the critical region by implementing the
> same granularity, just don't implement your own locking schemes, like
> this.

It sounds like seqlocks will match this access pattern pretty well?
--
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/