Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 Apr 2011 15:05:24 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: About lock-less data structure patches |
| |
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 02:32:06PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Huang Ying (ying.huang@intel.com) wrote: > > On 04/06/2011 09:48 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > > * huang ying (huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com) wrote: > > [snip] > > >>>> > > >>>> OK. I will change the comments, adding these semantics explanation. > > >>>> The user should be warned :) > > >>> > > >>> Yes, that makes sense. After this generalization step, if you're ok with > > >>> this, we could aim at moving the implementation from a stack to a queue > > >>> and provide fifo semantic rather than lifo, so that other users (e.g. > > >>> call_rcu in the kernel) can start benefiting from it.
Just to be clear... Currently, call_rcu() works on a per-CPU basis, so that it can simply disable interrupts and then do the queuing non-atomically.
However, should it be necessary to cross-queue RCU callbacks in order to avoid ever executing an RCU callback on a given CPU, then something like this might become useful.
Thanx, Paul
> > >> I think that is good to move from stack to queue. > > >> > > >> I will send out changed lock-less data structure patchset soon. And > > >> we can continue to work on the new lock-less queue at the same time. > > > > > > Sounds like a very good plan! Thanks! > > > > Maybe you can send out your lock-less queue patches, so we can work on that. > > Yep, let's wait until your implementation is finalized and merged, and > then ping me again so I can cook up a RFC patch turning llist into a > queue, if it's OK with you. > > Thanks, > > Mathieu > > > > > Best Regards, > > Huang Ying > > -- > Mathieu Desnoyers > Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant > EfficiOS Inc. > http://www.efficios.com
| |