[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ABAAB4F.2060905@nortel.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:12:15 -0600
From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
CC: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Userspace RCU: (ab)using futexes to save cpu cycles and
energy
On 09/23/2009 04:32 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> /*
> * Defer thread waiting. Single thread.
> */
> static void wait_defer(void)
> {
> atomic_dec(&defer_thread_futex);
> smp_mb(); /* Write futex before read queue */
> if (rcu_defer_num_callbacks()) {
> smp_mb(); /* Read queue before write futex */
> /* Callbacks are queued, don't wait. */
> atomic_set(&defer_thread_futex, 0);
> } else {
> smp_rmb(); /* Read queue before read futex */
> if (atomic_read(&defer_thread_futex) == -1)
> futex(&defer_thread_futex, FUTEX_WAIT, -1,
> NULL, NULL, 0);
> }
> }
> The goal here is that if call_rcu() enqueues a callback (even if it
> races with defer thread going to sleep), there should not be a
> potentially infinite delay before it gets executed.
It doesn't seem like the test for the number of callbacks should be
necessary. I don't see anything like that in the glibc code, nor do I
remember anything like that in the futex sample code.
I'm still not totally convinced that you can avoid race conditions
without using atomic test-and-set or compare-and-exchange. I haven't
sat down and worked it out completely though.
Chris
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists