[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1857730044.1901.1479218090893.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:54:50 +0000 (UTC)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
dipankar <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
dvhart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>, fweisbec <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
bobby prani <bobby.prani@...il.com>, ldr709 <ldr709@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] SRCU rewrite
----- On Nov 15, 2016, at 2:51 AM, Peter Zijlstra peterz@...radead.org wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:36:36AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> SRCU uses two per-cpu counters: a nesting counter to count the number of
>> active critical sections, and a sequence counter to ensure that the nesting
>> counters don't change while they are being added together in
>> srcu_readers_active_idx_check().
>>
>> This patch instead uses per-cpu lock and unlock counters. Because the both
>> counters only increase and srcu_readers_active_idx_check() reads the unlock
>> counter before the lock counter, this achieves the same end without having
>> to increment two different counters in srcu_read_lock(). This also saves a
>> smp_mb() in srcu_readers_active_idx_check().
>
> A very small improvement... I feel SRCU has much bigger issues :/
Do you have specific issues in mind ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists