From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757848AbbE3TRv (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 May 2015 15:17:51 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54466 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754188AbbE3TRm (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 May 2015 15:17:42 -0400 Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 21:16:52 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Peter Zijlstra , tj@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, der.herr@hofr.at, dave@stgolabs.net, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] rcu: Create rcu_sync infrastructure Message-ID: <20150530191652.GA13956@redhat.com> References: <20150526114356.609107918@infradead.org> <20150526120214.632757988@infradead.org> <20150530165810.GA14999@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150530165810.GA14999@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/30, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 01:43:57PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > From: Oleg Nesterov > > > > It is functionally equivalent to > > > > struct rcu_sync_struct { > > atomic_t counter; > > }; > > > > static inline bool rcu_sync_is_idle(struct rcu_sync_struct *rss) > > { > > return atomic_read(&rss->counter) == 0; > > } > > > > static inline void rcu_sync_enter(struct rcu_sync_struct *rss) > > { > > atomic_inc(&rss->counter); > > synchronize_sched(); > > } > > For vanilla RCU, this is called get_state_synchronize_rcu(). > > > static inline void rcu_sync_exit(struct rcu_sync_struct *rss) > > { > > synchronize_sched(); > > atomic_dec(&rss->counter); > > } > > > > except: it records the state and synchronize_sched() is only called by > > rcu_sync_enter() and only if necessary. > > Again for vanilla RCU, this is called cond_synchronize_rcu(). Hmm. I do not understand... I think rcu_sync doesn't need get_state/cond_synchronize. The first caller of rcu_sync_enter() always needs sync(). The next one could use cond_synchronize_rcu(), but for what? The 2nd one will wait for the end of gp started by the first caller, and this is more optimal? Note that rcu_sync_enter/rcu_sync_func never call sync() unless strictly necessary. Or I misunderstood you? Oleg.