From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 02/26] task_work: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:02:48 -0700 Message-ID: <20170630200248.GF2393@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20170629235918.GA6445@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1498780894-8253-2-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170630110445.GA5123@redhat.com> <20170630125020.GU2393@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170630152010.GA6935@redhat.com> <20170630161607.GX2393@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170630192123.GA8471@redhat.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, dave@stgolabs.net, manfred@colorfullife.com, tj@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, will.deacon@arm.com, peterz@infradead.org, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@gmail.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org To: Oleg Nesterov Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170630192123.GA8471@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 09:21:23PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 06/30, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 05:20:10PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > I do not think the overhead will be noticeable in this particular case. > > > > > > But I am not sure I understand why do we want to unlock_wait. Yes I agree, > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > if it was not clear, I tried to say "why do we want to _remove_ unlock_wait". > > > > it has some problems, but still... > > > > > > The code above looks strange for me. If we are going to repeat this pattern > > > the perhaps we should add a helper for lock+unlock and name it unlock_wait2 ;) > > > > > > If not, we should probably change this code more: > > > > This looks -much- better than my patch! May I have your Signed-off-by? > > Only if you promise to replace all RCU flavors with a single simple implementation > based on rwlock ;) ;-) ;-) ;-) Here you go: https://github.com/pramalhe/ConcurrencyFreaks/blob/master/papers/poormanurcu-2015.pdf > Seriously, of course I won't argue, and it seems that nobody except me likes > this primitive, but to me spin_unlock_wait() looks like synchronize_rcu(() and > sometimes it makes sense. Well, that analogy was what led me to propose that its semantics be defined as spin_lock() immediately followed by spin_unlock(). But that didn't go over well. > Including this particular case. task_work_run() is going to flush/destroy the > ->task_works list, so it needs to wait until all currently executing "readers" > (task_work_cancel()'s which have started before ->task_works was updated) have > completed. Understood! Thanx, Paul