Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] rcu: Create rcu_sync infrastructure

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 05/30, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 01:43:57PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> >
> > It is functionally equivalent to
> >
> >         struct rcu_sync_struct {
> >                 atomic_t counter;
> >         };
> >
> >         static inline bool rcu_sync_is_idle(struct rcu_sync_struct *rss)
> >         {
> >                 return atomic_read(&rss->counter) == 0;
> >         }
> >
> >         static inline void rcu_sync_enter(struct rcu_sync_struct *rss)
> >         {
> >                 atomic_inc(&rss->counter);
> >                 synchronize_sched();
> >         }
>
> For vanilla RCU, this is called get_state_synchronize_rcu().
>
> >         static inline void rcu_sync_exit(struct rcu_sync_struct *rss)
> >         {
> >                 synchronize_sched();
> >                 atomic_dec(&rss->counter);
> >         }
> >
> > except: it records the state and synchronize_sched() is only called by
> > rcu_sync_enter() and only if necessary.
>
> Again for vanilla RCU, this is called cond_synchronize_rcu().

Hmm. I do not understand... I think rcu_sync doesn't need
get_state/cond_synchronize.

The first caller of rcu_sync_enter() always needs sync(). The next one
could use cond_synchronize_rcu(), but for what? The 2nd one will wait
for the end of gp started by the first caller, and this is more optimal?

Note that rcu_sync_enter/rcu_sync_func never call sync() unless strictly
necessary.

Or I misunderstood you?

Oleg.