Re: [PATCH 1/2] srcu-3: RCU variant permitting read-side blocking

[Matt Helsley]

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 15:59 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

<snip>

> > So, a fourth possibility -- can a call from start_kernel() invoke some
> > function in yours and Matt's code invoke init_srcu_struct() to get a
> > statically allocated srcu_struct initialized?  Or, if this is part of
> > a module, can the module initialization function do this work?
> > 
> > (Hey, I had to ask!)
> 
> That is certainly a viable approach: just force everyone to use dynamic 
> initialization.  Changes to existing code would be relatively few.

	Works for me. I've been working on patches for Andrew's multi-chain
proposal and I could use an init function there anyway. Should be faster
too -- dynamically-allocated per-cpu memory can take advantage of
node-local memory whereas, to my knowledge, statically-allocated cannot.

> I'm not sure where the right place would be to add these initialization 
> calls.  After kmalloc is working but before the relevant notifier chains 
> get used at all.  Is there such a place?  I guess it depends on which 
> notifier chains we convert.
> 
> We might want to leave some chains using the existing rw-semaphore API.  
> It's more appropriate when there's a high frequency of write-locking
> (i.e., things registering or unregistering on the notifier chain).  The 
> SRCU approach is more appropriate when the chain is called a lot and 
> needs to have low overhead, but (un)registration is uncommon.  Matt's task 
> notifiers are a good example.

Yes, it is an excellent example.

> Alan Stern

Cheers,
	-Matt Helsley

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