From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
mtk.manpages@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] 64-bit futexes: Intro
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 20:54:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080602185433.GB4081@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805311438080.3141@woody.linux-foundation.org>
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> IOW, I'm faking it, but I'm making a point. Namely that you can
> efficiently do read-write lock using *only* 32-bit ops, and without
> any real kind of limitations on the number of readers and writers.
>
> So here goes the explanation and the pseudo-code.
>
> - have two levels of locking: the contended case, and the uncontended
> case
i suspect _any_ abstract locking functionality around a data structure
can be implemented via atomic control over just a single user-space bit.
That bit can be used as a lock and if all access to the state of that
atomic variable uses it, arbitrary higher-order atomic state transitions
can be derived from it. The cost would be a bit more instructions in the
fastpath, but there would still only be a single atomic op (the acquire
op), as the unlock would be a natural barrier (on x86 at least).
Concurrency (and scheduling) of that lock would still be exactly the
same as with genuine 64-bit (or even larger) atomic ops, and the
fastpath would be very close as well.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-06-02 18:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-31 1:27 Ulrich Drepper
2008-05-31 2:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-05-31 3:14 ` Ulrich Drepper
2008-05-31 3:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-05-31 4:04 ` Ulrich Drepper
2008-05-31 4:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-05-31 4:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-05-31 4:38 ` Ulrich Drepper
2008-05-31 4:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-05-31 22:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-05-31 22:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-06-02 18:54 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2008-06-02 20:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-06-02 23:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-06-03 3:24 ` Nick Piggin
2008-06-04 19:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-06-04 20:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-06-05 1:56 ` Nick Piggin
2008-06-05 1:58 ` Nick Piggin
2008-06-05 3:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-06-05 4:29 ` Nick Piggin
2008-06-05 1:45 ` Nick Piggin
2008-06-06 1:27 ` Nick Piggin
2008-06-06 3:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-06-06 11:53 ` Nick Piggin
2008-06-06 15:01 ` Linus Torvalds
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080602185433.GB4081@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=drepper@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®