[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210261208010.5413@file.rdu.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:09:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] brw_mutex: big read-write mutex
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > The code is different, but it can be changed to use percpu rw semaphores
> > (if we add percpu_down_write_trylock).
>
> I don't really understand how you can make percpu_down_write_trylock()
> atomic so that it can be called under br_write_lock(vfsmount_lock) in
> sb_prepare_remount_readonly(). So I guess you also need to replace
> vfsmount_lock at least. Or _trylock needs the barriers in _down_read.
> Or I missed something.
>
> Oleg.
That's true - that code is under spinlock and you can't implement
non-blocking percpu_down_write_trylock.
Mikulas
--
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