search for: _non_

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Calvin Walton <calvin.walton@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 03:30 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> I use btrfs on most of my volumes on my laptop, and I''ve always felt >> booting was very slow, but definitely sure is slow, is starting up >> Google Chrome: >> >> encrypted ext4: ~20s >> btrfs: ~2:11s

...RITE}_ONCE(). Uh, so, READ/WRITE_ONCE are non-atomic now. I missed that. If READ/WRITE_ONCE are non-atomic, half of kernel is broken. All these loads of flags, ringbuffer positions, pointers, etc are broken. What about restoring READ/WRITE_ONCE as atomic, and introducing separate primitives for _non_ atomic loads/stores? It seems to me that there is just a dozen of cases that don't need atomicity and where performance is any important (though, some of these should probably try to write to shared memory less frequently and save hundreds of cycles, rather than try to save few cycles on local...

...RITE}_ONCE(). Uh, so, READ/WRITE_ONCE are non-atomic now. I missed that. If READ/WRITE_ONCE are non-atomic, half of kernel is broken. All these loads of flags, ringbuffer positions, pointers, etc are broken. What about restoring READ/WRITE_ONCE as atomic, and introducing separate primitives for _non_ atomic loads/stores? It seems to me that there is just a dozen of cases that don't need atomicity and where performance is any important (though, some of these should probably try to write to shared memory less frequently and save hundreds of cycles, rather than try to save few cycles on local...

...e from eliminating Asterisk from the media path. I am currently running a Linksys WRT54G with Talisman to get QOS. Any recommendations for an alternate QOS router? Ideally it will also support multiple sub-domains... I checked: http://www.voip-info.org/wiki-VOIP+Routers but couldn't see a _non_ NAT router with QOS (I don't need VoIP ports, but maybe I'll have no choice) Thanks, Hugh

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 04:21:39PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > READ/WRITE_ONCE imply atomicity. Even if their names don't spell it (a > function name doesn't have to spell all of its guarantees). Most of > the uses of READ/WRITE_ONCE will be broken if they are not atomic. In practice, this is certainly the assumption made by many/most users of the *_ONCE() accessors.