[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131101142404.GG19466@laptop.lan>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 15:24:04 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
prarit@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] fix race between stop_two_cpus and stop_cpus
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 01:44:24PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Ok, I see your point now but still wonder if this is too specialised
> for what we are trying to do. Could it have been done with a read-write
> semaphore with the global stop_cpus taking it for write and stop_two_cpus
> taking it for read?
rwsem for read is still global state.. That said it should be fairly
easy to use lglock for this.
Or write it with spinlocks like:
DEFINE_PER_CPU(spinlock_t, local_lock);
DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, have_global);
spinlock_t global_lock;
void local_lock(void)
{
preempt_disable();
spin_lock(this_cpu_ptr(&local_lock));
if (spin_is_locked(&global_lock)) {
spin_unlock(this_cpu_ptr(&local_lock));
spin_lock(&global_lock);
this_cpu_write(have_global, true);
spin_lock(this_cpu_ptr(&local_lock));
}
}
void local_unlock(void)
{
spin_unlock(this_cpu_ptr(&local_lock));
if (this_cpu_read(have_global)) {
this_cpu_write(have_global, false);
spin_unlock(&global_lock);
}
}
void global_lock(void)
{
int cpu;
spin_lock(&global_lock);
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
spin_unlock_wait(&per_cpu(local_lock, cpu));
}
void global_unlock(void)
{
spin_unlock(&global_lock);
}
Or possibly make the global_lock a mutex, plenty variants possible.
--
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