lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 8/8] fs/aio: Use rcu_work instead of explicit rcu and work item
Hi Tejun,

On 03/26, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:24:12PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > But why flush_rcu_work() can't simply do flush_work() ?
> >
> > If WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT was set by us (rcu_work_rcufn() succeeded) we do not
> > need rcu_barrier(). Why should we care about other rcu callbacks?
> >
> > If rcu_work_rcufn() fails and someone else sets PENDING, how this rcu_barrier()
> > can help? We didn't even do call_rcu() in this case.
> >
> > In short. Once flush_work() returns we know that rcu callback which queued this
> > work is finished. It doesn't matter if it was fired by us or not. And if it was
> > not fired by us, then rcu_barrier() doesn't imply a grace period anyway.
>
> flush_*work() guarantees to wait for the completion of the latest
> instance of the work item which was visible to the caller. We can't
> guarantee that w/o rcu_barrier().

And this is what I can't understand.

So let me repeat. Could you please describe a use-case which needs flush_rcuwork()
with rcu_barrier() ?


> > And again, at least for fs/aio.c it doesn't offer too much but sub-optimal
> > compared to call_rcu() + schedule_work() by hand.
>
> Sure, this isn't about performance. It's about making code less
> painful on the eyes. If performance matters, we sure can hand-craft
> things, which doesn't seem to be the case, right?

OK, I won't insist.

Oleg.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-27 16:29    [W:0.150 / U:1.576 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site