From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S933174AbbCQQhq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:37:46 -0400
Received: from mail.efficios.com ([78.47.125.74]:33782 "EHLO mail.efficios.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S933105AbbCQQg1 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:36:27 -0400
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 16:36:27 +0000 (UTC)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Nicholas Miell <nmiell@comcast.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1311724860.20775.1426610187883.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
In-Reply-To: <680573370.19261.1426598016060.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
References: <1426447459-28620-1-git-send-email-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <1203077851.9491.1426520636551.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20150316172104.GH21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1003922584.10662.1426532015839.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20150316205435.GJ21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <910572156.13900.1426556725438.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20150317063059.GJ2896@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <680573370.19261.1426598016060.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sys_membarrier(): system/process-wide memory
 barrier (x86) (v12)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [173.246.22.116]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.7_GA_6021 (ZimbraWebClient - FF36 (Linux)/8.0.7_GA_6021)
Thread-Topic: sys_membarrier(): system/process-wide memory barrier (x86) (v12)
Thread-Index: PHgziFm/F9pajjU7lvXLq1bP9RJcgEVe1j/+
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:45:25AM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
[...]
> > 
> > > Would you see it as acceptable if we start by implementing
> > > only the non-expedited sys_membarrier() ?
> > 
> > Sure.
> > 
> > > Then we can add
> > > the expedited-private implementation after rq->curr becomes
> > > available through RCU.
> > 
> > Yeah, or not at all; I'm still trying to get Paul to remove the
> > expedited nonsense from the kernel RCU bits; and now you want it in
> > userspace too :/
> 
> The non-expedited case makes sense when we batch RCU work
> with call_rcu. However, some users require to use synchronize_rcu()
> directly after modifying their data structure. Therefore, the
> latency associated with sys_membarrier() then becomes important,
> hence the interest for an expedited scheme.
> 
> I agree that we should try to find a way to implement it with
> low disturbance on the CPU's rq locks. I'd be certainly
> OK with starting with just the non-expedited scheme, and add
> the expedited scheme later on. This is why we have the flags
> anyway.

Paul, I'm currently reworking the patch to keep only the
non-expedited scheme. I don't need to touch the scheduler
internals anymore, so should I move the sys_membarrier
system call implementation into kernel/rcu/update.c ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com