On 10/02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> From: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>

Thanks! I was writing the patch, and I chose almost the same naming ;)

> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>

In fact I'd like to add my sob to 1/3 and 3/3 as well.


Paul, to remind, this is only the first step. I am going to send
the following improvements:

        1. Add rcu_sync->exlusive. The change is simple, just we
           need s/wait_queue_head_t/completion/ in rcu_sync_struct
           and a couple of "if (rss->exclusive)" checks in enter/exit.

        2. rcu_sync_enter() should return !!need_sync. This can help
           in exclusive mode.

        3. rcu_sync_struct needs more function pointers (perhaps we
           should add a single rcu_sync_struct->ops pointer but this
           is minor). See below.

But let me repeat just in case, we should do this later.
And once this series is applied, I'll change percpu_rw_semaphore.


> +struct rcu_sync_struct {
> +     int                     gp_state;
> +     int                     gp_count;
> +     wait_queue_head_t       gp_wait;
> +
> +     int                     cb_state;
> +     struct rcu_head         cb_head;
> +
> +     void (*sync)(void);
> +     void (*call)(struct rcu_head *, void (*)(struct rcu_head *));

Yes, and we also need rcu_sync_struct->barrier(). From the patch I was
working on:

        void rcu_sync_wait_for_callback(struct rcu_sync *sync)
        {
                int cb_state;

                BUG_ON(sync->gp_count);

                spin_lock_irq(&sync->state_lock);
                if (sync->cb_state == CB_REPLAY)
                        sync->cb_state = CB_PENDING;
                cb_state = sync->cb_state;
                spin_unlock_irq(&sync->state_lock);

                if (cb_state != CB_IDLE) {
                        rcu_barrier_sched();
                        BUG_ON(sync->cb_state != CB_IDLE);
                }
        }

It should be called if you are going to kfree the object.

Perhaps another rcu_sync_struct->state_change(new_state) callback (set
by the user) makes sense too, this can help (for example) to implement
the array of semaphores with a single rcu_sync_struct (freeze_super).

Thanks.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to