On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
wrote:
> Some important design requirements and considerations:
> -
>
> 1. Scalable synchronization at the reader-side, especially in the fast-path
>
>Any synchronization at the atomic hotplug
On 02/18/2013 09:53 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> wrote:
>> Some important design requirements and considerations:
>> -
[...]
>> +/*
>> + * Invoked by atomic hotplug reader (a task which wants
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
wrote:
> On 02/18/2013 09:53 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>> I am wondering though, if you could take care of recursive uses in
>> get/put_online_cpus_atomic() instead of doing it as a property of your
>> rwlock:
>>
>> get_online_cpus_atomic()
>>
On 02/18/2013 10:51 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> wrote:
>> On 02/18/2013 09:53 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>>> I am wondering though, if you could take care of recursive uses in
>>> get/put_online_cpus_atomic() instead of doing it as a proper
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
wrote:
> But, the whole intention behind removing the parts depending on the
> recursive property of rwlocks would be to make it easier to make rwlocks
> fair (going forward) right? Then, that won't work for CPU hotplug, because,
> just like we hav
On 02/19/2013 03:10 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> wrote:
>> But, the whole intention behind removing the parts depending on the
>> recursive property of rwlocks would be to make it easier to make rwlocks
>> fair (going forward) right? Then, that
> I wouldn't go that far... ;-) Unfairness is not a show-stopper right?
> IMHO, the warning/documentation should suffice for anybody wanting to
> try out this locking scheme for other use-cases.
I presume that by 'fairness' you mean 'write preference'?
I'd not sure how difficult it would be, but
On 02/19/2013 04:12 PM, David Laight wrote:
>> I wouldn't go that far... ;-) Unfairness is not a show-stopper right?
>> IMHO, the warning/documentation should suffice for anybody wanting to
>> try out this locking scheme for other use-cases.
>
> I presume that by 'fairness' you mean 'write prefere
