From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] radix-tree: support locking of individual exception entries.
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 21:14:24 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87si06lfcv.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87a8mfm86l.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 807 bytes --]
On Fri, Mar 04 2016, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> By not layering on top of wait_bit_key, you've precluded the use of the
> current page wait_queues for these locks - you need to allocate new wait
> queue heads.
>
> If in
>
>> +struct wait_exceptional_entry_queue {
>> + wait_queue_t wait;
>> + struct exceptional_entry_key key;
>> +};
>
> you had the exceptional_entry_key first (like wait_bit_queue does) you
> would be closer to being able to re-use the queues.
Scratch that bit, I was confusing myself again. Sorry.
Each wait_queue_t has it's own function so one function will never be
called on other items in the queue - of course.
>
> Also I don't think it is safe to use an exclusive wait. When a slot is
> deleted, you need to wake up *all* the waiters.
I think this issue is still valid.
NeilBrown
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 818 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-04 10:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-28 5:09 [PATCH 0/3] RFC improvements to radix-tree related to DAX NeilBrown
2016-02-28 5:09 ` [PATCH 1/3] DAX: move RADIX_DAX_ definitions to dax.c NeilBrown
2016-02-29 14:28 ` Wilcox, Matthew R
2016-02-29 17:46 ` Ross Zwisler
2016-02-28 5:09 ` [PATCH 2/3] radix-tree: make 'indirect' bit available to exception entries NeilBrown
2016-02-29 14:41 ` Wilcox, Matthew R
2016-03-01 21:59 ` Ross Zwisler
2016-02-28 5:09 ` [PATCH 3/3] radix-tree: support locking of individual " NeilBrown
2016-02-28 5:30 ` kbuild test robot
2016-02-28 6:27 ` NeilBrown
2016-03-03 13:10 ` Jan Kara
2016-03-03 23:51 ` NeilBrown
2016-03-04 10:14 ` NeilBrown [this message]
2016-03-04 12:31 ` Jan Kara
2016-03-09 2:13 ` NeilBrown
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=87si06lfcv.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name \
--to=neilb@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com \
--cc=ross.zwisler@linux.intel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).