From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Mike Day <ncmike@ncultra.org>
Cc: rp@svcs.cs.pdx.edu, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>,
Paul Mckenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Introduce RCU-enabled DQs (v2)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:23:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <521BD554.4010806@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGaKXu1V5Cz+9b=v=HEt2kn=2sJiD+ORm_9SyB7v35zNXWWUOw@mail.gmail.com>
Il 26/08/2013 23:48, Mike Day ha scritto:
>
>
> Mathieu - Thanks for the review! And thanks for the code, I'm working
> with it right now. I like the idea of using a flag to provide a form of
> atomicity for the doubly-linked list elements. I'm also planning on
> running some timing tests to see of the additional memory barriers and
> atomic accesses make *any* difference whatsoever.
We probably have already too many queue/list variations (a relic of the
BSD queue.h headers). Linux does not need RCU-friendly reverse
iteration at all, do we really need it? In other words, I think your v2
was really close to mergeable state...
Paolo
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Mike Day <ncmike@ncultra.org>
Cc: rp@svcs.cs.pdx.edu, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>,
Paul Mckenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] Introduce RCU-enabled DQs (v2)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:23:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <521BD554.4010806@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGaKXu1V5Cz+9b=v=HEt2kn=2sJiD+ORm_9SyB7v35zNXWWUOw@mail.gmail.com>
Il 26/08/2013 23:48, Mike Day ha scritto:
>
>
> Mathieu - Thanks for the review! And thanks for the code, I'm working
> with it right now. I like the idea of using a flag to provide a form of
> atomicity for the doubly-linked list elements. I'm also planning on
> running some timing tests to see of the additional memory barriers and
> atomic accesses make *any* difference whatsoever.
We probably have already too many queue/list variations (a relic of the
BSD queue.h headers). Linux does not need RCU-friendly reverse
iteration at all, do we really need it? In other words, I think your v2
was really close to mergeable state...
Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-26 22:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-24 19:06 [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] Introduce RCU-enabled DQs (v2) Mike Day
2013-08-25 6:32 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-08-25 13:06 ` Mike Day
2013-08-26 11:39 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-08-25 19:18 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2013-08-26 21:48 ` Mike Day
2013-08-26 21:48 ` [Qemu-devel] " Mike Day
2013-08-26 22:23 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2013-08-26 22:23 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-08-25 19:18 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
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=521BD554.4010806@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=anthony@codemonkey.ws \
--cc=lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=ncmike@ncultra.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=rp@svcs.cs.pdx.edu \
/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.