Replaying what Tejun wrote:

Hello, Oleg.

Replaying what Oleg wrote:

quoted

Replacing get_online_cpus() w/ percpu_rwsem is great but this thread
is about replacing preempt_disable with something finer grained and
less heavy on the writer side

If only I understood why preempt_disable() is bad ;-)

OK, I guess "less heavy on the writer side" is the hint, and in the
previous email you mentioned that "stop_machine() itself is extremely
heavy".

Looks like, you are going to remove stop_machine() from cpu_down ???

Yeah, that's what Srivatsa is trying to do.  The problem seems to be
that cpu up/down is very frequent on certain mobile platforms for
power management and as currently implemented cpu hotplug is too heavy
and latency-inducing.
  

quoted

The problem seems that we don't have percpu_rwlock yet.  It shouldn't
be too difficult to implement, right?

Oh, I am not sure... unless you simply copy-and-paste the lglock code
and replace spinlock_t with rwlock_t.

Ah... right, so that's where brlock ended up.  So, lglock is the new
thing and brlock is a wrapper around it.

We probably want something more efficient, but I bet we can't avoid
the barriers on the read side.

And somehow we should avoid the livelocks. Say, we can't simply add
the per_cpu_reader_counter, _read_lock should spin if the writer is
active. But at the same time _read_lock should be recursive.

I think we should just go with lglock.  It does involve local atomic
ops but atomic ops themselves aren't that expensive and it's not like
we can avoid memory barriers.  Also, that's the non-sleeping
counterpart of percpu_rwsem.  If it's not good enough for some reason,
we should improve it rather than introducing something else.

Thanks.

-- tejun