On 03/05, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
On 03/03/13 01:20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
quoted
On 03/02, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
quoted
+void lg_rwlock_local_read_unlock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
+{
+ switch (__this_cpu_read(*lgrw->reader_refcnt)) {
+ case 1:
+ __this_cpu_write(*lgrw->reader_refcnt, 0);
+ lg_local_unlock(&lgrw->lglock);
+ return;
+ case FALLBACK_BASE:
+ __this_cpu_write(*lgrw->reader_refcnt, 0);
+ read_unlock(&lgrw->fallback_rwlock);
+ rwlock_release(&lg->lock_dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
I guess "case 1:" should do rwlock_release() too.
Already do it in "lg_local_unlock(&lgrw->lglock);" before it returns.
(I like reuse old code)
Yes, I was wrong thanks. Another case when I didn't notice that you
re-use the regular lg_ code...
quoted
We need rwlock_acquire_read() even in the fast-path, and this acquire_read
should be paired with rwlock_acquire() in _write_lock(), but it does
spin_acquire(lg->lock_dep_map). Yes, currently this is the same (afaics)
but perhaps fallback_rwlock->dep_map would be more clean.
I can't tell which one is better. I try to use fallback_rwlock->dep_map later.
I am not sure which one should be better too, please check.
Again, I forgot that _write_lock/unlock use lg_global_*() code.
Oleg.