Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Oct 2013 21:41:26 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] rcu: Create rcu_sync infrastructure |
| |
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 09:06:53PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > However, yes-yes-yes, I do think that we need the non-exclusive mode > too, at least for percpu_down_write_nonexclusive() which I think we > need as well.
I just need to disagree with the write_nonexclusive() name; the construct I quite understand and could even agree with.
How about something like:
State excluding 'writers', but not itself: percpu_read_lock() percpu_read_unlock()
State excluding readers, but not itself: percpu_non_read_lock(); percpu_non_read_unlock();
Full exclusive state: percpu_write_lock(); percpu_write_unlock();
At which point I start to have doubts about the percpu prefix.. ;-)
| |