Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] percpu_rw_semaphore: reimplement to not block the readers unnecessarily

2012-11-08 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 11/07, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > On 11/07, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > > > > > It looks sensible. > > > > > > Here I'm sending an improvement of the patch - I changed it so that there > > > are not two-level nested functions for the fast path and

Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] percpu_rw_semaphore: reimplement to not block the readers unnecessarily

2012-11-08 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 11/07, Mikulas Patocka wrote: On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Oleg Nesterov wrote: On 11/07, Mikulas Patocka wrote: It looks sensible. Here I'm sending an improvement of the patch - I changed it so that there are not two-level nested functions for the fast path and so that both

Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] percpu_rw_semaphore: reimplement to not block the readers unnecessarily

2012-11-07 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 12:04:48PM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > It looks sensible. > > Here I'm sending an improvement of the patch - I changed it so that there > are not two-level nested functions for the fast path and so that both > percpu_down_read and percpu_up_read use the same piece of

Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] percpu_rw_semaphore: reimplement to not block the readers unnecessarily

2012-11-07 Thread Mikulas Patocka
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 11/07, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > > > It looks sensible. > > > > Here I'm sending an improvement of the patch - I changed it so that there > > are not two-level nested functions for the fast path and so that both > > percpu_down_read and

Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] percpu_rw_semaphore: reimplement to not block the readers unnecessarily

2012-11-07 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 11/07, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > It looks sensible. > > Here I'm sending an improvement of the patch - I changed it so that there > are not two-level nested functions for the fast path and so that both > percpu_down_read and percpu_up_read use the same piece of code (to reduce > cache

[PATCH v3 1/1] percpu_rw_semaphore: reimplement to not block the readers unnecessarily

2012-11-07 Thread Mikulas Patocka
It looks sensible. Here I'm sending an improvement of the patch - I changed it so that there are not two-level nested functions for the fast path and so that both percpu_down_read and percpu_up_read use the same piece of code (to reduce cache footprint). --- Currently the writer does

[PATCH v3 1/1] percpu_rw_semaphore: reimplement to not block the readers unnecessarily

2012-11-07 Thread Mikulas Patocka
It looks sensible. Here I'm sending an improvement of the patch - I changed it so that there are not two-level nested functions for the fast path and so that both percpu_down_read and percpu_up_read use the same piece of code (to reduce cache footprint). --- Currently the writer does

Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] percpu_rw_semaphore: reimplement to not block the readers unnecessarily

2012-11-07 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 11/07, Mikulas Patocka wrote: It looks sensible. Here I'm sending an improvement of the patch - I changed it so that there are not two-level nested functions for the fast path and so that both percpu_down_read and percpu_up_read use the same piece of code (to reduce cache footprint).

Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] percpu_rw_semaphore: reimplement to not block the readers unnecessarily

2012-11-07 Thread Mikulas Patocka
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Oleg Nesterov wrote: On 11/07, Mikulas Patocka wrote: It looks sensible. Here I'm sending an improvement of the patch - I changed it so that there are not two-level nested functions for the fast path and so that both percpu_down_read and percpu_up_read use the

Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] percpu_rw_semaphore: reimplement to not block the readers unnecessarily

2012-11-07 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 12:04:48PM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote: It looks sensible. Here I'm sending an improvement of the patch - I changed it so that there are not two-level nested functions for the fast path and so that both percpu_down_read and percpu_up_read use the same piece of code