On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
<srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 02/18/2013 09:53 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>> I am wondering though, if you could take care of recursive uses in
>> get/put_online_cpus_atomic() instead of doing it as a property of your
>> rwlock:
>>
>> get_online_cpus_atomic()
>> {
>> unsigned long flags;
>> local_irq_save(flags);
>> if (this_cpu_inc_return(hotplug_recusion_count) == 1)
>> percpu_read_lock_irqsafe(&hotplug_pcpu_rwlock);
>> local_irq_restore(flags);
>> }
>>
>> Once again, the idea there is to avoid baking the reader side
>> recursive properties into your rwlock itself, so that it won't be
>> impossible to implement reader/writer fairness into your rwlock in the
>> future (which may be not be very important for the hotplug use, but
>> could be when other uses get introduced).
>
> Hmm, your proposal above looks good to me, at first glance.
> (Sorry, I had mistaken your earlier mails to mean that you were against
> recursive reader-side, while you actually meant that you didn't like
> implementing the recursive reader-side logic using the recursive property
> of rwlocks).
To be honest, I was replying as I went through the series, so I hadn't
digested your hotplug use case yet :)
But yes - I don't like having the rwlock itself be recursive, but I do
understand that you have a legitimate requirement for
get_online_cpus_atomic() to be recursive. This IMO points to the
direction I suggested, of explicitly handling the recusion in
get_online_cpus_atomic() so that the underlying rwlock doesn't have to
support recursive reader side itself.
(And this would work for the idea of making writers own the reader
side as well - you can do it with the hotplug_recursion_count instead
of with the underlying rwlock).
> While your idea above looks good, it might introduce more complexity
> in the unlock path, since this would allow nesting of heterogeneous readers
> (ie., if hotplug_recursion_count == 1, you don't know whether you need to
> simply decrement the counter or unlock the rwlock as well).
Well, I think the idea doesn't make the underlying rwlock more
complex, since you could in principle keep your existing
percpu_read_lock_irqsafe implementation as is and just remove the
recursive behavior from its documentation.
Now ideally if we're adding a bit of complexity in
get_online_cpus_atomic() it'd be nice if we could remove some from
percpu_read_lock_irqsafe, but I haven't thought about that deeply
either. I think you'd still want to have the equivalent of a percpu
reader_refcnt, except it could now be a bool instead of an int, and
percpu_read_lock_irqsafe would still set it to back to 0/false after
acquiring the global read side if a writer is signaled. Basically your
existing percpu_read_lock_irqsafe code should still work, and we could
remove just the parts that were only there to deal with the recursive
property.
--
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
