On 01/31, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:24:35PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 12:51:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > This barrier thing is constructed so that it will not write in the
> > > > sync() condition (the hot path) when there are no active lock
> > > > sections; thus avoiding cacheline bouncing. -- I'm just not sure how
> > > > this will work out in relation to PI. We might track those in the
> > > > barrier scope and boost those by the max prio of the blockers.
> > >
> > > Is this really needed? We seem to grow new funky locking algorithms
> > > exponentially, while people already have a hard time understanding the
> > > existing ones.
> >
> > yes, it's needed.
>
> Would it be possible to come up with something common between this primitive
> and the one that Oleg Nesterov put together for Jens Axboe?
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/11/29/330
>
> Oleg's approach acquires a lock on the update side, which Peter would
> not want in the uncontended case -- but perhaps there is some way to
> make Oleg's approach be able to safely test both counters so as to
> avoid acquiring the lock if there are no readers.
>
> Oleg, any chance of this working? I believe it does, but have not
> thought it through fully.
I think no. From the quick reading, barrier_sync() and qrcu/srcu are
quite different. Consider:
barrier_lock()
barrier_sync();
barrier_unlock();
... wake up ...
barrier_lock();
schedule again
The last "schedule again" would be a BUG for qrcu/srcu, but probably
it is ok for barrier_sync(). It looks like barrier_sync() is more a
rw semaphore biased to readers.
A couple of minor off-topic notes,
+static inline void barrier_unlock(struct barrier *b)
+{
+ smp_wmb();
+ if (atomic_dec_and_test(&b->count))
+ __wake_up(&b->wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE|TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, 0, b);
This is wake_up_all(&b->wait), yes? I don't undestans why key == b, it could be NULL.
+static inline void barrier_sync(struct barrier *b)
+{
+ might_sleep();
+
+ if (unlikely(atomic_read(&b->count))) {
+ DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
+ prepare_to_wait(&b->wait, &wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
+ while (atomic_read(&b->count))
+ schedule();
+ finish_wait(&b->wait, &wait);
+ }
+}
This should be open-coded wait_event(), but wrong! With the scenario above this
can hang forever! because the first wake_up removes the task from the &b->wait.
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
