[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170329085626.rtudonk7bqzoy3vm@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:56:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jack@...e.cz,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, mhocko@...e.com,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 09:03:26PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig b/drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig
> index 88e01e08e279..e4d9eadd2c47 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig
> @@ -154,7 +154,6 @@ config DRM_RADEON
> select HWMON
> select BACKLIGHT_CLASS_DEVICE
> select BACKLIGHT_LCD_SUPPORT
> - select INTERVAL_TREE
> help
> Choose this option if you have an ATI Radeon graphics card. There
> are both PCI and AGP versions. You don't need to choose this to
> @@ -174,7 +173,6 @@ config DRM_AMDGPU
> select HWMON
> select BACKLIGHT_CLASS_DEVICE
> select BACKLIGHT_LCD_SUPPORT
> - select INTERVAL_TREE
> help
> Choose this option if you have a recent AMD Radeon graphics card.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Kconfig b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Kconfig
> index 183f5dc1c3f2..8a9154550f46 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Kconfig
> @@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ config DRM_I915
> depends on DRM
> depends on X86 && PCI
> select INTEL_GTT
> - select INTERVAL_TREE
> # we need shmfs for the swappable backing store, and in particular
> # the shmem_readpage() which depends upon tmpfs
> select SHMEM
I presume this is part of making INTERVAL_TREE unconditional; should be
a separate patch, no?
> +/*
> + * The largest range will span [0,RANGE_RWLOCK_INFINITY].
> + */
> +#define RANGE_RWLOCK_INFINITY (~0UL - 1)
That's a strange limit, what's wrong with ~0UL ?
> +
> +struct range_rwlock {
> + struct interval_tree_node node;
> + struct task_struct *task;
> + /* Number of ranges which are blocking acquisition of the lock */
> + unsigned int blocking_ranges;
> + bool reader;
> +};
Hate the name; our rwlock is a spinlock, therefore this thing suggests
it is too.
Also, no bool in structures.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists