[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140813175328.GY9918@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 19:53:28 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sanjay Rao <srao@...hat.com>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] time: drop do_sys_times spinlock
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 01:50:24PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 08/13/2014 01:40 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > So the problem with the above is the lack of fwd progress; if
> > there's enough clone()/exit() happening in the thread group (and
> > the more CPUs the more possible), we'll keep repeating.
>
> We can fall back to taking the lock if we circle around,
> or if there is a writer active when we are in seqcount_read,
> similar to what the semaphore (ipc/sem.c) code is doing.
>
> read_seqbegin_or_lock would do the trick...
Yep that would work.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists