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 S1754080Ab3JDLg6 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 4 Oct 2013 07:36:58 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:64010 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753849Ab3JDLg4 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 4 Oct 2013 07:36:56 -0400
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 13:29:45 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, 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: <20131004112945.GB5699@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> <20131003220057.GY5790@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131003220057.GY5790@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
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 10/03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 11:10:09PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > rcusync: introduce rcu_sync_struct->exclusive mode
> >
> > CHANGELOG.
>
> Should the changelog really be in all caps?  (Sorry, couldn't resist...)

Apparently you do not realize it is going to be an EXCELLENT changelog!

> > @@ -53,9 +55,13 @@ void rcu_sync_enter(struct rcu_sync_struct *rss)
> >  	if (need_sync) {
> >  		rss->ops->sync();
> >  		rss->gp_state = GP_PASSED;
> > -		wake_up_all(&rss->gp_wait);
> > +		if (!rss->exclusive)
> > +			wake_up_all(&rss->gp_comp.wait);
>
> Not sure about the wake_up_all() on a completion,

Yes, we reuse completion->wait in the !exclusive case. Like we reuse
its spinlock as rss_lock.

We can add a completion/complete union, but this will complicate the
code a bit and imo doesn't make sense.

> but if we are exclusive,
> don't we need to complete() the completion here?

No, if we are exclusive we should delay the "wake up the next writer"
till rcu_sync_exit().

> Oh, I guess gp_comp.wait is exactly a wait_queue_head_t, so I guess
> you can do wake_up_all() on it...

Yes, and we never "mix" completion/wait_queue_head_t operations/members.
IOW, we always use ->gp_comp if "exclusive", and only ->gp_comp.wait is
used otherwise.

> Never mind!!!

Agreed ;)

Oleg.