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

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Mon, 05 May 2014 11:00:44 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com> 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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>