[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160715180140.GM7094@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:01:40 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tj@...nel.org,
john.stultz@...aro.org, dimitrysh@...gle.com, romlem@...gle.com,
ccross@...gle.com, tkjos@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking/percpu-rwsem: Introduce bias knob
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 06:49:39PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/15, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 03:45:24PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 07/15, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 03:27:09PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Heh ;) I too think it should be renamed. I'd suggest
> > > > >
> > > > > __rcu_sync_enter(rss);
> > > > >
> > > > > although I do not really mind and agree with any name.
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm... Why not just move the checks out into the caller? That
> > > > would make the intent much more clear.
> > >
> > > Hmm. which caller?
> >
> > The ones associated with a percpu_rwsem_bias of PERCPU_RWSEM_READER.
>
> Ah. But if we add __rcu_sync_enter() instead of bias/PERCPU_RWSEM_READER.
>
> IOW, please ignore 2/2 which adds PERCPU_RWSEM_READER, the new version
> just adds rcu_sync_sabotage() which should be renamed (and use GP_PASSED).
OK, then move the checks out into the callers that would have used
__rcu_sync_enter(). ;-)
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists