[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131004194126.GW15690@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 21:41:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
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 Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 09:06:53PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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.
I just need to disagree with the write_nonexclusive() name; the
construct I quite understand and could even agree with.
How about something like:
State excluding 'writers', but not itself:
percpu_read_lock()
percpu_read_unlock()
State excluding readers, but not itself:
percpu_non_read_lock();
percpu_non_read_unlock();
Full exclusive state:
percpu_write_lock();
percpu_write_unlock();
At which point I start to have doubts about the percpu prefix.. ;-)
--
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