Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754623AbdDDPbT (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:31:19 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:45042 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1754585AbdDDPbR (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:31:17 -0400
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 08:31:05 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, mingo@kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, mhocko@suse.com,
        mgorman@techsingularity.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock
Message-ID: <20170404153105.GA1114@linux-80c1.suse>
References: <1488863010-13028-1-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <1488863010-13028-2-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <2f7628f4-58e1-22c4-ccbe-3106c15cb405@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170328163918.GA27446@linux-80c1.suse>
 <20170403161917.4ef46f17@nimbus>
 <20170403152643.GB2270@linux-80c1.suse>
 <20170403160654.GI15168@quack2.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170403160654.GI15168@quack2.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 313
Lines: 11

On Mon, 03 Apr 2017, Jan Kara wrote:

>Or just a plain sequence counter of the lock operations?

So what I dislike about this is that we'd also have to enlarge
the struct range_rwlock_tree. otoh, I'm hesitant to depend on
the tick rate for lock correctness, so perhaps your suggestion
is best.

Thanks,
Davidlohr