[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150717232930.GA16247@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 01:29:30 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Add rcu_sync infrastructure to avoid _expedited()
in percpu-rwsem
On 07/15, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 09:36:01PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Do you mean you need another user except percpu_rw_semaphore? I do
> > not see any right now...
>
> Not asking for more than one use, but it does need a use. I believe
> that percpu_rw_semaphore suffices.
>
> > Let me remind about sb_writers again. It actually has 3 rw_sem's
> > and I am trying to turn then into percpu_rw_semaphore's.
> >
> > In this case freeze_super() will need 6 synchronize_sched_expedited().
> > This just looks ugly. But if we have rcu_sync primitives, all 3 sem's
> > in struct super_block can share the same "struct rcu_sync", and
> > freeze_super() will need only once synchronize_sched().
>
> Makes sense.
Great, thanks. And iiuc Linus doesn't object to this particular change.
Plus I see the "Make checkpatch.pl warn on expedited RCU grace periods"
patch ;)
So can I assume you will take these changes?
I do not need them right now, just I need to know what should I do in
destroy_super() and (much more importantly) what should I say in the
changelogs if I try to convert sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore.
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