X-Git-Url: http://plrg.eecs.uci.edu/git/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=folly%2FRWSpinLock.h;h=5bbdca6f4e5ed5f00efeabc7ef4bc99db8dc90d0;hb=8d5c32ba92f8d4902b15bc5ba340a420a212ce73;hp=5be38d37ab0bd9543062a7027e6e2ccc601c08aa;hpb=26d9f3f3cc34d30f7e73a6f12a3bae5102c7512e;p=folly.git

diff --git a/folly/RWSpinLock.h b/folly/RWSpinLock.h
index 5be38d37..5bbdca6f 100644
--- a/folly/RWSpinLock.h
+++ b/folly/RWSpinLock.h
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 /*
- * Copyright 2015 Facebook, Inc.
+ * Copyright 2016 Facebook, Inc.
  *
  * Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
  * you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
@@ -15,6 +15,22 @@
  */
 
 /*
+ * N.B. You most likely do _not_ want to use RWSpinLock or any other
+ * kind of spinlock.  Use SharedMutex instead.
+ *
+ * In short, spinlocks in preemptive multi-tasking operating systems
+ * have serious problems and fast mutexes like SharedMutex are almost
+ * certainly the better choice, because letting the OS scheduler put a
+ * thread to sleep is better for system responsiveness and throughput
+ * than wasting a timeslice repeatedly querying a lock held by a
+ * thread that's blocked, and you can't prevent userspace
+ * programs blocking.
+ *
+ * Spinlocks in an operating system kernel make much more sense than
+ * they do in userspace.
+ *
+ * -------------------------------------------------------------------
+ *
  * Two Read-Write spin lock implementations.
  *
  *  Ref: http://locklessinc.com/articles/locks
@@ -24,12 +40,14 @@
  *  are very compact (4/8 bytes), so are suitable for per-instance
  *  based locking, particularly when contention is not expected.
  *
- *  In most cases, RWSpinLock is a reasonable choice.  It has minimal
- *  overhead, and comparable contention performance when the number of
- *  competing threads is less than or equal to the number of logical
- *  CPUs.  Even as the number of threads gets larger, RWSpinLock can
- *  still be very competitive in READ, although it is slower on WRITE,
- *  and also inherently unfair to writers.
+ *  For a spinlock, RWSpinLock is a reasonable choice.  (See the note
+ *  about for why a spin lock is frequently a bad idea generally.)
+ *  RWSpinLock has minimal overhead, and comparable contention
+ *  performance when the number of competing threads is less than or
+ *  equal to the number of logical CPUs.  Even as the number of
+ *  threads gets larger, RWSpinLock can still be very competitive in
+ *  READ, although it is slower on WRITE, and also inherently unfair
+ *  to writers.
  *
  *  RWTicketSpinLock shows more balanced READ/WRITE performance.  If
  *  your application really needs a lot more threads, and a
@@ -63,8 +81,7 @@
  * @author Xin Liu <xliux@fb.com>
  */
 
-#ifndef FOLLY_RWSPINLOCK_H_
-#define FOLLY_RWSPINLOCK_H_
+#pragma once
 
 /*
 ========================================================================
@@ -119,6 +136,7 @@ pthread_rwlock_t Read        728698     24us       101ns     7.28ms     194us
 */
 
 #include <folly/Portability.h>
+#include <folly/portability/Asm.h>
 
 #if defined(__GNUC__) && \
   (defined(__i386) || FOLLY_X64 || \
@@ -132,7 +150,7 @@ pthread_rwlock_t Read        728698     24us       101ns     7.28ms     194us
 #endif
 
 // iOS doesn't define _mm_cvtsi64_si128 and friends
-#if (FOLLY_SSE >= 2) && !TARGET_OS_IPHONE
+#if (FOLLY_SSE >= 2) && !FOLLY_MOBILE
 #define RW_SPINLOCK_USE_SSE_INSTRUCTIONS_
 #else
 #undef RW_SPINLOCK_USE_SSE_INSTRUCTIONS_
@@ -141,7 +159,6 @@ pthread_rwlock_t Read        728698     24us       101ns     7.28ms     194us
 #include <atomic>
 #include <string>
 #include <algorithm>
-#include <boost/noncopyable.hpp>
 
 #include <sched.h>
 #include <glog/logging.h>
@@ -672,8 +689,11 @@ class RWTicketSpinLockT {
   class WriteHolder;
 
   typedef RWTicketSpinLockT<kBitWidth, kFavorWriter> RWSpinLock;
-  class ReadHolder : boost::noncopyable {
+  class ReadHolder {
    public:
+    ReadHolder(ReadHolder const&) = delete;
+    ReadHolder& operator=(ReadHolder const&) = delete;
+
     explicit ReadHolder(RWSpinLock *lock = nullptr) :
       lock_(lock) {
       if (lock_) lock_->lock_shared();
@@ -709,8 +729,11 @@ class RWTicketSpinLockT {
     RWSpinLock *lock_;
   };
 
-  class WriteHolder : boost::noncopyable {
+  class WriteHolder {
    public:
+    WriteHolder(WriteHolder const&) = delete;
+    WriteHolder& operator=(WriteHolder const&) = delete;
+
     explicit WriteHolder(RWSpinLock *lock = nullptr) : lock_(lock) {
       if (lock_) lock_->lock();
     }
@@ -763,5 +786,3 @@ typedef RWTicketSpinLockT<64> RWTicketSpinLock64;
 #ifdef RW_SPINLOCK_USE_X86_INTRINSIC_
 #undef RW_SPINLOCK_USE_X86_INTRINSIC_
 #endif
-
-#endif  // FOLLY_RWSPINLOCK_H_