Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18 00/16] Restartable Sequences

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> So for instance, this turns:
> 
>   int cpu = rseq_per_cpu_lock(lock, target_cpu);
>   [...]
>   rseq_per_cpu_unlock(lock, cpu);
> 
> into
> 
>   int cpu = rseq_this_cpu_lock(lock);
>   [...]
>   rseq_per_cpu_unlock(lock, cpu);
> 
> and:
> 
>   per_cpu_list_push(list, node, target_cpu);
>   [...]
>   per_cpu_list_pop(list, node, target_cpu);
> 
> into
> 
>   this_cpu_list_push(list, node, &cpu);  /* cpu is an output parameter. */
>   [...]
>   node = this_cpu_list_pop(list, &cpu);  /* cpu is an output parameter. */
> 
> Eventually integrating cpu_opv or some alternative will allow passing
> the cpu number as parameter rather than requiring the algorithm to work
> on the current CPU.
> 
> The second effect of not having the cpu_opv fallback is that
> line and instruction single-stepping with a debugger transforms rseq
> critical sections based on retry loops into never-ending loops.
> Debuggers need to use the __rseq_table section to skip those critical
> sections in order to correctly behave when single-stepping a thread
> which uses rseq in a retry loop. However, applications which use an
> alternative fallback method rather than retrying on rseq fast-path abort
> won't be affected by this kind of single-stepping issue.
> 
> Thanks for your feedback!

Would it make sense to include Documentation/ patch? I guess at least
manpage describing the syscall will be needed....

								Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature