lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 05/45] percpu_rwlock: Make percpu-rwlocks IRQ-safe, optimally
On 02/09/2013 05:14 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 01:04:11PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> If interrupt handlers can also be readers, then one of the ways to make
>> per-CPU rwlocks safe, is to disable interrupts at the reader side before
>> trying to acquire the per-CPU rwlock and keep it disabled throughout the
>> duration of the read-side critical section.
[...]
>> -void percpu_read_lock(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock)
>> +void percpu_read_lock_irqsafe(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock)
>> {
>> preempt_disable();
>>
>> /* First and foremost, let the writer know that a reader is active */
>> - this_cpu_inc(*pcpu_rwlock->reader_refcnt);
>> + this_cpu_add(*pcpu_rwlock->reader_refcnt, READER_PRESENT);
>>
>> /*
>> * If we are already using per-cpu refcounts, it is not safe to switch
>> * the synchronization scheme. So continue using the refcounts.
>> */
>> if (reader_nested_percpu(pcpu_rwlock)) {
>> - goto out;
>> + this_cpu_inc(*pcpu_rwlock->reader_refcnt);
>
> Hmmm... If the reader is nested, it -doesn't- need the memory barrier at
> the end of this function. If there is lots of nesting, it might be
> worth getting rid of it.
>

Yes, good point! Will get rid of it.

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-10 21:21    [W:0.910 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site