On 06/30, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 05:20:10PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > 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".
> > 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 ;)
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.
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.
Oleg.
