From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Salman Qazi <sqazi@google.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: rwlock_t unfairness and tasklist_lock
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:34:41 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1301111522150.7475@ionos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANN689HRmVTLCjNL9c=JqhWy5F5vwr=A7coo3TVKLZGSVUpQjw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> - Does anyone know of any current work towards removing the
> tasklist_lock use of rwlock_t ? Thomas Gleixner mentioned 3 years ago
> that he'd give it a shot (https://lwn.net/Articles/364601/), did he
> encounter some unforeseen difficulty that we should learn from ?
I converted quite a bunch of the read side instances to rcu
protection, but got distracted. There was no fundamental difficulty,
just lack of time.
> - Would there be any fundamental objection to implementing a fair
> rwlock_t and dealing with the reentrancy issues in tasklist_lock ? My
> proposal there would be along the lines of:
>
> 1- implement a fair rwlock_t - the ticket based idea from David
> Howells seems quite appropriate to me
Nah. Lets get it killed. Most of the stuff can be converted to RCU and
the remaining bits and pieces are the write lock sides which then can
be converted to a big standard spinlock. There might be a few more
complex ones, but Oleg said back then that those should be solved by
locking the process instead of locking the whole tasklist.
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-11 14:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-09 4:03 Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-09 17:49 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-01-09 23:20 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-12 17:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-01-25 0:33 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-11 14:34 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2013-01-12 3:33 ` [PATCH] " Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-12 17:46 ` Oleg Nesterov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LFD.2.02.1301111522150.7475@ionos \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=sqazi@google.com \
--cc=walken@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®