From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1754734AbYHYPw0@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754734AbYHYPw0 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:52:26 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752285AbYHYPwS
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:52:18 -0400
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:54019 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753140AbYHYPwR (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:52:17 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] smp_call_function: use rwlocks on queues
	rather	than rcu
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
       Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
       "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>,
       Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
       Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
       Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <48B2D3BE.40101@linux-foundation.org>
References: <84144f020808220006n25d684b1n9db306ddc4f58c4c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <48AEC6B2.1080701@linux-foundation.org>
	 <20080822151156.GA6744@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	 <48AEF3FD.70906@linux-foundation.org>
	 <20080822182915.GG6744@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	 <48AF0735.60402@linux-foundation.org>
	 <20080822195226.GJ6744@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	 <48AF1B81.3050806@linux-foundation.org>
	 <20080822205339.GK6744@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1219660291.8515.20.camel@twins>
	 <20080825151220.GA6745@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1219677736.8515.69.camel@twins>
	  <48B2D3BE.40101@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:51:32 +0200
Message-Id: <1219679492.8515.77.camel@twins>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 10:46 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > If we combine these two cases, and flip the counter as soon as we've
> > enqueued one callback, unless we're already waiting for a grace period
> > to end - which gives us a longer window to collect callbacks.
> > 
> > And then the rcu_read_unlock() can do:
> > 
> >   if (dec_and_zero(my_counter) && my_index == dying)
> >     raise_softirq(RCU)
> > 
> > to fire off the callback stuff.
> > 
> > /me ponders - there must be something wrong with that...
> > 
> > Aaah, yes, the dec_and_zero is non trivial due to the fact that its a
> > distributed counter. Bugger..
> 
> Then lets make it per cpu. If we get the cpu ops in then dec_and_zero would be
> very cheap.

Hmm, perhaps that might work for classic RCU, as that disables
preemption and thus the counters should always be balanced.