Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:03:31 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] rcupdate: move synchronize_sched() back to rcupdate.c V2 |
| |
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:55:00AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:22:15AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > >> Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >>> On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 02:47:44PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > >>>> this fix remove ugly macro, and increase readability for rcupdate codes > >>>> > >>>> changed from v1: > >>>> use HAVE_SPECIAL_RCU_BH/SCHED instead of define duplicate version of > >>>> synchronize_sched(). > >>> Hello, Jiangshan! > >>> > >>> I very much like getting rid of the ugly macro. I of course like the > >>> kernel-doc fixes. ;-) > >>> > >>> I am not yet convinced of the HAVE_SPECIAL_RCU_BH and > >>> HAVE_SPECIAL_RCU_SCHED pieces. It is not clear to me that this approach > >>> is simpler than the current approach of simply providing the appropriate > >>> definitions for the symbols in the implementation-specific rcuxxx.h > >>> file. > >>> > >>> Am I missing something? > >>> > >>> Thanx, Paul > >>> > >> I think: > >> > >> RCU_BH is not required, we can used RCU instead. so HAVE_SPECIAL_RCU_BH > >> will help for implementation which has not RCU_BH. > >> > >> HAVE_SPECIAL_RCU_SCHED is a little different, RCU and RCU_SCHED are both > >> required for the kernel. But I think, in an implementation, > >> if rcu_read_lock_sched() implies rcu_read_lock(), we may not need implement > >> RCU_SCHED too(sometimes we may implement RCU_SCHED for performance). > >> so HAVE_SPECIAL_RCU_SCHED will help. > > > > If I understand correctly, this is the "old way": > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > rcupdate.h: > > > > #define rcu_read_lock_bh() __rcu_read_lock_bh() > > #define rcu_read_unlock_bh() __rcu_read_unlock_bh() > > > > rcupreempt.h: > > > > #define __rcu_read_lock_bh() { rcu_read_lock(); local_bh_disable(); } > > #define __rcu_read_unlock_bh() { local_bh_enable(); rcu_read_unlock(); } > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > And then this is the "new way": > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > rcupdate.h: > > > > #ifdef HAVE_SPECIAL_RCU_BH > > #define rcu_read_lock_bh() __rcu_read_lock_bh() > > #define rcu_read_unlock_bh() __rcu_read_unlock_bh() > > #else > > #define __rcu_read_lock_bh() { rcu_read_lock(); local_bh_disable(); } > > #define __rcu_read_unlock_bh() { local_bh_enable(); rcu_read_unlock(); } > > #endif /* HAVE_SPECIAL_RCU_BH */ > > > > rcupreempt.h: > > > > #define HAVE_SPECIAL_RCU_BH > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > If we had ten different RCU implementations, then the "new way" would save > > a little bit of code. But the "old way" is a bit easier to figure out. > > > > So I am in favor of getting rid of the ugly macro, and also in favor > > of fixing the kerneldoc, but opposed to the HAVE_SPECIAL_RCU_BH and > > HAVE_SPECIAL_RCU_SCHED changes. > > I apprehended and agree with you. Thanx.
Sounds good -- and thank you for your much-needed efforts to improve the RCU implementation!
Thanx, Paul
| |