Question: I'm working on a system that have multiple threads and one shared object. There is a number of threads that do read operations very often, but write operations are rare, maybe 3 to 5 per day. 

I'm using rwlock for synchronization but the lock acquisition operation it's not fast enough since it happens all the time. So, I'm looking for a faster way of doing it. 

Maybe a way of making the write function atomic or looking all threads during the write. Portability it's not a hard requirement, I'm using Linux with GCC 4.6.

Answer: 
You might want to use a multiple objects rather than a single one. Instead of actually sharing the object, create an object that holds the object and an atomic count, then share a *pointer* to this structure among the threads. 

[Assuming that there is only one writer] Each reader will get the pointer, then atomically increment the counter and use the object, after reading, atomically decrement the counter. The writer will create a new object that holds a copy of the original and modify it. Then perform an atomic swap of the two pointers. Now the problem is releasing the old object, which is why you need the count of the readers. The writer needs to continue checking the count of the old object until all readers have completed the work at which point you can delete the old object.

If there are multiple writers (i.e. there can be more than one thread updating the variable) you can follow the same approach but with writers would need to do a compare-and-swap exchange of the pointer. If the pointer from which the updated copy has changed, then the writer restarts the process (deletes it's new object, copies again from the pointer and retries the CAS)
Maybe you could use a spinlock, the threads will busy wait until unlocked. If the threads aren't locked for long it can be much more efficent than mutexes since the locking and unlocking is completed with less instructions.

spinlock is a part of POSIX pthread although optional so I don't know if it's implemented on your system. I used them in a C program on ubuntu but had to compile with -std=gnu99 instead of c99.