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 S1753877Ab3JDLWZ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 4 Oct 2013 07:22:25 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41611 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752487Ab3JDLWY (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 4 Oct 2013 07:22:24 -0400
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 13:15:13 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] rcu: Create rcu_sync infrastructure
Message-ID: <20131004111513.GA5699@redhat.com>
References: <20131003164117.GD5790@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20131003184001.GM28601@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20131003184719.GA11996@redhat.com> <20131003192135.GR5790@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20131003193206.GA17796@redhat.com> <20131003193319.GB17796@redhat.com> <20131003195026.GT5790@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20131003200002.GA23768@redhat.com> <20131003211009.GA4127@redhat.com> <20131004071814.GS28601@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131004071814.GS28601@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 10/04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 11:10:09PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 10/03, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > So unless Peter objects I'll write the changelogs (always nontrivial task),
> > > test, and send these 2 patches + "add ops->barr() / rcu_sync_wait_for_cb"
> > > tomorrow.
> >
> > And, can't resist, probably another patch below (incomplete, needs the
> > obvious change in cpu.c and the new trivial __complete_locked() helper).
> >
> > Hmm. But when I look at wait_for_completion() I think it is buggy.

No, sorry for noise, it is fine.

> > rcusync: introduce rcu_sync_struct->exclusive mode
>
> What's exclusive to mean? One writer at a time?

Yes,

> Why don't use use the
> waitqueue in exclusive mode and use a single wake_up instead of
> wake_up_all()?

But this won't work, wait_event_exclusive(wq, CONDITION)-like code
obviously can't guarantee that only a single thread sees CONDITION,
even if "unlock" does __wake_up(nr_exclusive => 1).

Of course we can fix this, but wait_for_completion/complete already
does the necessary work: x->done acts as a resource counter which is
always checked/incremented/decremented under the same lock.

Oleg.