Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1755516AbcKQSl7 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:41:59 -0500
Received: from mail-it0-f67.google.com ([209.85.214.67]:36481 "EHLO
        mail-it0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1754775AbcKQSly (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:41:54 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20161115143700.GZ4127@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20161114183636.GA28589@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20161115014445.GC12110@tardis.cn.ibm.com>
 <20161115143700.GZ4127@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
From: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:18:51 +0800
Message-ID: <CAJhGHyCr74zTnc10QvORDZXfd-vdc0Caa0hG250UWwMwsMkUfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] SRCU rewrite
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, edumazet@google.com,
        dvhart@linux.intel.com,
        =?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBXZWlzYmVja2Vy?= <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        oleg@redhat.com, bobby.prani@gmail.com, ldr709@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1026
Lines: 28

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 09:44:45AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:

>>
>> __srcu_read_lock() used to be called with preemption disabled. I guess
>> the reason was because we have two percpu variables to increase. So with
>> only one percpu right, could we remove the preempt_{dis,en}able() in
>> srcu_read_lock() and use this_cpu_inc() here?
>
> Quite possibly...
>

it will be nicer if it is removed.

The reason for the preemption-disabled was also because we
have to disallow any preemption between the fetching of the idx
and the increasement. so that we have at most NR_CPUS worth
of readers using the old index that haven't incremented the counters.

if we remove the preempt_{dis,en}able(). we must change the
"NR_CPUS" in the comment into ULONG_MAX/4. (I assume
one on-going reader needs at least need 4bytes at the stack). it is still safe.

but we still need to think more if we want to remove the preempt_{dis,en}able().

Thanks
Lai