Re: [PATCH 2/3] rcu: Create rcu_sync infrastructure

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 10/04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 02:13:00PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 10/04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not entirely sure what the advantage is of having that logic in this
> > > primitive. Shouldn't that be something the user of this rcu_sync stuff
> > > does (or not) depending on its needs.
> >
> > Yes, the user can do the locking itself. But I think this option can help.
> > If nothing else it can help to avoid another mutex/whatever and unnecessary
> > wakeup/scheule's, even if this is minor.
> >
> > And. rcu_sync_enter() should be "bool", it should return "need_sync". IOW,
> > rcu_sync_enter() == T means that this thread has done the FAST -> SLOW
> > transition, this is particularly useful in "exclusive" mode.
> >
> > Consider percpu_down_write(). It takes rw_sem for writing (and this blocks
> > the readers) before clear_fast_ctr(), but we only need to do this this
> > after sync_sched(), so it could do
> >
> > 	if (rcu_sync_enter(&brw->rcu_sync))
> > 		atomic_add(clear_fast_ctr(brw), &brw->slow_read_ctr);
> > 	else
> > 		; /* the above was already done */
> >
> > 	/* exclude readers */
> > 	down_write(&brw->rw_sem);
> >
> > and now ->rw_sem is only needed to serialize readers/writer.
> >
> > Sure, this all is minor (and we will probably copy the "pending writer"
> > logic from cpu_hotplug_begin/get_online_cpus).
> >
> > But we can get this feature almost for free, so I think it makes sense.
>
> Well, the whole reason I asked is because adding that completion in
> there didn't at all smell like free to me;

Why? this only adds sizeof(long).

If you dislike the idea to add the new __complete_locked() one-liner,
this is not strictly necessary, just a bit simpler/understandable.

> not to mention that I hadn't
> at all realized you're using it as a semaphore.

And the logic is trivial.

> Also; what would be the use once you convert the per-cpu rwsem over to
> the scheme I used with hotplug?

It will still use the exclusive more to block other writers? This avoids
another mutex simplifies the code.

> I'm really starting to think we shouldn't do this in rcu_sync at all.

I do not really understand why you insist that rcu_sync() should not
try to help to the users which need the exclusive mode.

rcu_sync_enter/exit have to do some work to serialize with each other
anyway, we already have ->nr_writers, so why we can't add 3 simple
"if exclusive" checks?

Oleg.

--
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/