(I hope I'm not annoying you by bikeshedding this too much, although I
think this is improving.)
You've sort of re-invented spinlocks, but after thinking a bit,
it all works.
Rather than using a single word, which is incremented to an odd number
at the start of an update and an even number at
* Ingo Molnar wrote:
> One more detail: I just realized that with the read barriers, the READ_ONCE()
> accesses are not needed anymore - the barriers and the control dependencies
> are
> enough.
>
> This will further simplify the code.
I.e. something like the updated patch below. (We still
(I hope I'm not annoying you by bikeshedding this too much, although I
think this is improving.)
You've sort of re-invented spinlocks, but after thinking a bit,
it all works.
Rather than using a single word, which is incremented to an odd number
at the start of an update and an even number at
* Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote:
One more detail: I just realized that with the read barriers, the READ_ONCE()
accesses are not needed anymore - the barriers and the control dependencies
are
enough.
This will further simplify the code.
I.e. something like the updated patch below.
4 matches
Mail list logo
