Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:23:18 +0200 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] percpu-rw-semaphores: use light/heavy barriers |
| |
On 10/23, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Not really the comment, but the question...
Damn. And another question.
Mikulas, I am sorry for this (almost) off-topic noise. Let me repeat just in case that I am not arguing with your patches.
So write_lock/write_unlock needs to call synchronize_sched() 3 times. I am wondering if it makes any sense to try to make it a bit heavier but faster.
What if we change the reader to use local_irq_disable/enable around this_cpu_inc/dec (instead of rcu read lock)? I have to admit, I have no idea how much cli/sti is slower compared to preempt_disable/enable.
Then the writer can use
static void mb_ipi(void *arg) { smp_mb(); /* unneeded ? */ }
static void force_mb_on_each_cpu(void) { smp_mb(); smp_call_function(mb_ipi, NULL, 1); }
to a) synchronise with irq_disable and b) to insert the necessary mb's.
Of course smp_call_function() means more work for each CPU, but write_lock() should be rare...
This can also wakeup the idle CPU's, but probably we can do on_each_cpu_cond(cond_func => !idle_cpu). Perhaps cond_func() can also return false if rcu_user_enter() was called...
Actually I was thinking about this from the very beginning, but I do not feel this looks like a good idea. Still I'd like to ask what do you think.
Oleg.
| |