[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131004190653.GA17639@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 21:06:53 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] rcu: Create rcu_sync infrastructure
On 10/04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 05:13:23PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > I am not trying saying this feature is "must have", of course it
> > is not. The only problem, I am a bit puzzled why you dislike it
> > that much.
>
> The reason I dislike it is because I feel we're now mixing two objects
> into one; one object doing mutual exclusion and one object being
> terribly smart with sync_rcu.
OK, I see your point.
But rcu_sync_struct has to serialize the writers anyway. The only
question is how many other writers the thread doing ->sync() should
wakeup and when.
And otoh. Currently nobody needs the non-exclusive mode (cpu-hotplug
doesn't care because it is always exclusive itself). And in fact you
initially argued with wake_up_all ;) "exclusive" is more natural, it
is like rw_semaphore.
However, yes-yes-yes, I do think that we need the non-exclusive mode
too, at least for percpu_down_write_nonexclusive() which I think we
need as well.
Oleg.
--
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