Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.38 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.38;
Date:   Wed, 1 Nov 2023 23:15:02 +0100
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc:     Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
        linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rxrpc_find_service_conn_rcu: use read_seqbegin() rather
 than read_seqbegin_or_lock()
Message-ID: <20231101221502.GE32034@redhat.com>
References: <20231101202302.GB32034@redhat.com>
 <20231027095842.GA30868@redhat.com>
 <1952182.1698853516@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <1959032.1698873608@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1959032.1698873608@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On 11/01, David Howells wrote:
>
> However, I think just changing all of these to always-lockless isn't
> necessarily the most optimal way.

Yes, but so far I am trying to change the users which never take the
lock for writing, so this patch doesn't change the current behaviour.

> I wonder if struct seqlock would make more sense with an rwlock rather than a
> spinlock.  As it is, it does an exclusive spinlock for the readpath which is
> kind of overkill.

Heh. Please see

	[PATCH 4/5] seqlock: introduce read_seqcount_begin_or_lock() and friends
	https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230913155005.GA26252@redhat.com/

I am going to return to this later.

Oleg.