Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1611713
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock |
| Date | 2017-03-29 11:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tqhVL-4OF-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tigat-2NF-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tihpT-3Xx-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 09:03:26PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> +/*
> + * Implementation of read/write range locks.
> + *
> + * We keep interval tree of locked and to-be-locked ranges. When new range lock
> + * is requested, we add its interval to the tree and store number of intervals
> + * intersecting it to 'blocking_ranges'.
> + *
> + * When a range is unlocked, we again walk intervals that intersect with the
> + * unlocked one and decrement their 'blocking_ranges'. We wake up owner of any
> + * range lock whose 'blocking_ranges' drops to 0. For the shared case, the
> + * 'blocking_ranges' is only incremented if the intersecting range is not marked
> + * as a reader.
Not a word about fairness and starvation... Such important topics for
lock primitives.
In order to mitigate some of the tree walk overhead for
> + * non-intersecting ranges, the tree's min/max values are maintained and consulted
> + * in O(1) in the fastpath.
> + */
Maybe that ought not be here, doesn't seem like a fundamental design
point and would thus be better suited for a comment near where this
implementation detail is located ?
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH 1/5] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-29 11:20 +0200
csiph-web