lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] seqlock: Add a new blocking reader type
On 09/11/2013 10:55 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:28:26AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The sequence lock (seqlock) was originally designed for the cases
>> where the readers do not need to block the writers by making the
>> readers retry the read operation when the data change.
>>
>> Since then, the use cases have been expanded to include situations
>> where a thread does not need to change the data (effectively a reader)
>> at all but have to take the writer lock because it can't tolerate
>> changes to the protected structure. Some examples are the d_path()
>> function and the getcwd() syscall in fs/dcache.c where the functions
>> take the writer lock on rename_lock even though they don't need
>> to change anything in the protected data structure at all. This is
>> inefficient as a reader is now blocking other non-blocking readers
>> by pretending to be a writer.
>>
>> This patch tries to eliminate this inefficiency by introducing a new
>> type of blocking reader to the seqlock locking mechanism. This new
>> blocking reader will not block other non-blocking readers, but will
>> block other blocking readers and writers.
> Umm... That's misleading - it doesn't _block_, it spins. Moroever,
> seq_readbegin() also spins in presense of writer; the main property
> of this one is that it keeps writers away.

I used "block" in the sense that it will stop a writer from moving
forward. I will update the commit log to make that more clear.
> Folks, any suggestions on better names? The semantics we are getting is

I will welcome any better name suggestion and will incorporate that in
the patch.

-Longman


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-11 18:41    [W:0.566 / U:1.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site