On 02/11/2013 12:12 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> only one cosmetic nit...
>
> On 01/22, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>
>> +#define READER_PRESENT (1UL << 16)
>> +#define READER_REFCNT_MASK (READER_PRESENT - 1)
>> +
>> #define reader_uses_percpu_refcnt(pcpu_rwlock, cpu) \
>
On 02/09/2013 05:14 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 01:04:11PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> If interrupt handlers can also be readers, then one of the ways to make
>> per-CPU rwlocks safe, is to disable interrupts at the reader side before
>> trying to acquire the per-CPU
only one cosmetic nit...
On 01/22, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>
> +#define READER_PRESENT (1UL << 16)
> +#define READER_REFCNT_MASK (READER_PRESENT - 1)
> +
> #define reader_uses_percpu_refcnt(pcpu_rwlock, cpu) \
> (ACCESS_ONCE(per_cpu(*((pcpu_rwlock)->
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 01:04:11PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> If interrupt handlers can also be readers, then one of the ways to make
> per-CPU rwlocks safe, is to disable interrupts at the reader side before
> trying to acquire the per-CPU rwlock and keep it disabled throughout the
> duratio
If interrupt handlers can also be readers, then one of the ways to make
per-CPU rwlocks safe, is to disable interrupts at the reader side before
trying to acquire the per-CPU rwlock and keep it disabled throughout the
duration of the read-side critical section.
The goal is to avoid cases such as:
