[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161115145536.GE11311@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:55:36 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.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 Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 06:26:27AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 02:59:12PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > The smp_mb()s in read_{un,}lock() and the lock in call_srcu() come to
> > mind.
>
> There is some possibility of weakening the srcu_read_unlock() ordering,
> but one step at a time.
>
> Has the lock in call_srcu() been causing trouble? Easy to fix if so,
> but as you noted in another email today, we don't need complexity for
> complexity's sake. And no reports of problems with this have reached
> me thus far.
It was a cause for concern in the optimistic fault series, but since
that never got sorted, it hasn't shown up in practise afaik.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists