On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 09:21:23PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

On 06/30, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 05:20:10PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

quoted

I do not think the overhead will be noticeable in this particular case.

But I am not sure I understand why do we want to unlock_wait. Yes I agree,

                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

if it was not clear, I tried to say "why do we want to _remove_ unlock_wait".

quoted

quoted

it has some problems, but still...

The code above looks strange for me. If we are going to repeat this pattern
the perhaps we should add a helper for lock+unlock and name it unlock_wait2 ;)

If not, we should probably change this code more:

This looks -much- better than my patch!  May I have your Signed-off-by?

Only if you promise to replace all RCU flavors with a single simple implementation
based on rwlock ;)

;-) ;-) ;-)

Here you go:

https://github.com/pramalhe/ConcurrencyFreaks/blob/master/papers/poormanurcu-2015.pdf

Seriously, of course I won't argue, and it seems that nobody except me likes
this primitive, but to me spin_unlock_wait() looks like synchronize_rcu(() and
sometimes it makes sense.

Well, that analogy was what led me to propose that its semantics be
defined as spin_lock() immediately followed by spin_unlock().  But that
didn't go over well.

Including this particular case. task_work_run() is going to flush/destroy the
->task_works list, so it needs to wait until all currently executing "readers"
(task_work_cancel()'s which have started before ->task_works was updated) have
completed.

Understood!

							Thanx, Paul