[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160217110520.GN6375@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:05:20 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] lib/percpu-list: Per-cpu list with associated
per-cpu locks
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:00:40PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 08:53:18PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > +/**
> > > + * for_all_percpu_list_entries - iterate over all the per-cpu list with locking
But the locking is 'pointless'. You only lock one per-cpu sublist at a
time, therefore the list can be modified concurrently anyhow.
So why not use RCU for the list iteration and avoid potentially large
lock hold times?
> > > + * @pos: the type * to use as a loop cursor for the current .
> > > + * @next: an internal type * variable pointing to the next entry
> > > + * @pchead: an internal struct list * of percpu list head
> > > + * @pclock: an internal variable for the current per-cpu spinlock
> > > + * @head: the head of the per-cpu list
> > > + * @member: the name of the per-cpu list within the struct
> > > + */
Powered by blists - more mailing lists