From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
mc@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>,
david@fromorbit.com,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Maciej Rutecki <maciej.rutecki@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] VFS: br_write_lock locks on possible CPUs other than online CPUs
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:52:51 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111219205251.GK2203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4EEF9D4E.1000008@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 01:53:42AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> If this new definition of our requirement is acceptable (correct me if I am
> wrong), then we can do something like the following patch, while still
> retaining br locks as non-blocking.
>
> We make a copy of the current cpu_online_mask, and lock the per-cpu locks of
> all those cpus. Then while unlocking, we unlock the per-cpu locks of these cpus
> (by using that temporary copy of cpu_online_mask we created earlier), without
> caring about the cpus actually online at that moment.
> IOW, we do lock-unlock on the same set of cpus, and that too, without missing
> the complete lock-unlock sequence in any of them. Guaranteed.
And what's to stop a process on a newly added CPU from _not_
spinning in br_read_lock(), even though br_write_unlock() hadn't been
done yet?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-19 20:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-19 3:36 [PATCH] VFS: br_write_lock locks on possible CPUs other than online CPUs mengcong
2011-12-19 4:11 ` Al Viro
2011-12-19 5:00 ` Dave Chinner
2011-12-19 6:07 ` mengcong
2011-12-19 7:31 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-19 9:12 ` Stephen Boyd
2011-12-19 11:03 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-19 12:11 ` Al Viro
2011-12-19 20:23 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-19 20:52 ` Al Viro [this message]
2011-12-20 4:56 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-20 6:27 ` Al Viro
2011-12-20 7:28 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-20 9:37 ` mengcong
2011-12-20 10:36 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-20 11:08 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-20 12:50 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-20 14:06 ` Al Viro
2011-12-20 14:35 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-20 17:59 ` Al Viro
2011-12-20 19:12 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-20 19:58 ` Al Viro
2011-12-20 22:27 ` Dave Chinner
2011-12-20 23:31 ` Al Viro
2011-12-21 21:15 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-21 22:02 ` Al Viro
2011-12-21 22:12 ` Andrew Morton
2011-12-22 7:02 ` Al Viro
2011-12-22 7:20 ` Andrew Morton
2011-12-22 8:08 ` Al Viro
2011-12-22 8:17 ` Andi Kleen
2011-12-22 8:39 ` Al Viro
2011-12-22 8:22 ` Andi Kleen
2011-12-20 7:30 ` mengcong
2011-12-20 7:37 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-19 23:56 ` Dave Chinner
2011-12-20 4:05 ` Al Viro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20111219205251.GK2203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maciej.rutecki@gmail.com \
--cc=mc@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=npiggin@kernel.dk \
--cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.