Re: [PATCH 1/2] percpu-rw-semaphores: use light/heavy barriers

[Mikulas Patocka]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> On 10/23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Not really the comment, but the question...
> 
> Damn. And another question.
> 
> Mikulas, I am sorry for this (almost) off-topic noise. Let me repeat
> just in case that I am not arguing with your patches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So write_lock/write_unlock needs to call synchronize_sched() 3 times.
> I am wondering if it makes any sense to try to make it a bit heavier
> but faster.
> 
> What if we change the reader to use local_irq_disable/enable around
> this_cpu_inc/dec (instead of rcu read lock)? I have to admit, I have
> no idea how much cli/sti is slower compared to preempt_disable/enable.
> 
> Then the writer can use
> 
> 	static void mb_ipi(void *arg)
> 	{
> 		smp_mb(); /* unneeded ? */
> 	}
> 
> 	static void force_mb_on_each_cpu(void)
> 	{
> 		smp_mb();
> 		smp_call_function(mb_ipi, NULL, 1);
> 	}
> 
> to a) synchronise with irq_disable and b) to insert the necessary mb's.
> 
> Of course smp_call_function() means more work for each CPU, but
> write_lock() should be rare...
> 
> This can also wakeup the idle CPU's, but probably we can do
> on_each_cpu_cond(cond_func => !idle_cpu). Perhaps cond_func() can
> also return false if rcu_user_enter() was called...
> 
> Actually I was thinking about this from the very beginning, but I do
> not feel this looks like a good idea. Still I'd like to ask what do
> you think.
> 
> Oleg.

I think - if we can avoid local_irq_disable/enable, just avoid it (and use 
barrier-vs-synchronize_kernel).

Mikulas
--
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/