[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150623105548.GE18673@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:55:48 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tj@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, der.herr@...r.at, dave@...olabs.net,
riel@...hat.com, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 12/13] stop_machine: Remove lglock
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:09:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> We can of course slap a percpu-rwsem in, but I wonder if there's
> anything smarter we can do here.
Urgh, we cannot use percpu-rwsem here, because that would require
percpu_down_write_trylock(), and I'm not sure we can get around the
sync_sched() for that.
Now try_stop_cpus(), which requires the down_write_trylock() is used to
implement synchronize_sched_expedited().
Using sync_sched() to implement sync_sched_expedited would make me
happy, but it does somewhat defeat the purpose.
Also, I think _expedited is used too eagerly, look at this:
+void dm_sync_table(struct mapped_device *md)
+{
+ synchronize_srcu(&md->io_barrier);
+ synchronize_rcu_expedited();
+}
sync_srcu() is slow already, why then bother with an
sync_rcu_expedited() :/
--
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