linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] rcu classic: new algorithm for callbacks-processing(v2)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 6 Aug 2008 20:19:20 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
	Gautham Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] rcu classic: new algorithm for
	callbacks-processing(v2)

On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 03:08:10PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [...]
> > 
> > Tell me more about percpu_ptr().
> 
> Sorry about this. percpu_ptr is used for dynamic allocation percpu pointer.

Yep, that I knew.

> It seems that we cannot get a pointer from a static declare percpu data
> which can be used as a dynamic allocation percpu data's pointer. 

Sad but true...  Ran into this with SRCU a couple of years back.  :-/

> > 
> [...]
> > 
> > I have a somewhat different goal here.  I want to simplify the memory
> > ordering design without giving up too much performance -- the current
> > state in mainline is much too fragile, in my opinion, especially given
> > that the grace-period code paths are not fastpaths.
> > 
> > Next step -- hierarchical grace-period detection to handle the 4096-CPU
> > machines that I was being buttonholed about at OLS...
> > 
> > Would you be interested in applying your multi-tailed list change to
> > preemptable RCU?
> > 
> It's not necessary. Actually I like one tail per list which is good for
> readability. 
> 
> But in my patch, the most work is combining lists, not
> moving a list to next list, so i use multi-tailed simplify this works
> and others(etc: "if (rdp->nxtlist)" will be changed to be a more
> complex and less readability statement if i use one-tail-per-list)
> 
> These not means multi-tailed is good thing.

It does indeed depend on the details of the implementation.

							Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/