From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jack@suse.cz,
kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
mhocko@suse.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -tip 0/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:37:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170419123735.GB5730@worktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170406084620.22700-1-dave@stgolabs.net>
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 01:46:14AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> ** What's still pending:
> - Debug support (it's been a pain to use lockdep with range locking).
How so? Just assume that every range is the full range. Which isn't such
a weird assumption as it would seem. After all, you cannot assume
anything much about the ranges to begin with. So therefore you cannot
assume the ranges don't all overlap either. At which point you're back
to the regular r/w semantics for deadlocks.
Also:
- explain interval order and what that means for forward progress
guarantees. This is currently still unparsable.
- explain why the loss of lock stealing makes sense. IIRC walken added
that specifically to address mmap_sem performance issues.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-19 12:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-06 8:46 [PATCH v2 -tip 0/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock Davidlohr Bueso
2017-04-06 8:46 ` [PATCH 1/6] interval-tree: Build unconditionally Davidlohr Bueso
2017-04-06 8:46 ` [PATCH 2/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock Davidlohr Bueso
2017-04-06 9:01 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-04-06 16:50 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2017-04-13 8:07 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-04-13 8:38 ` Jan Kara
2017-04-13 8:58 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-04-06 10:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-18 13:57 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-04-20 16:01 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2017-04-21 7:00 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-04-06 8:46 ` [PATCH 3/6] locking/locktorture: Fix rwsem reader_delay Davidlohr Bueso
2017-04-06 8:46 ` [PATCH 4/6] locking/locktorture: Fix num reader/writer corner cases Davidlohr Bueso
2017-04-06 8:46 ` [PATCH 5/6] locking/locktorture: Support range rwlocks Davidlohr Bueso
2017-04-06 8:46 ` [PATCH 6/6] staging/lustre: Use generic range rwlock Davidlohr Bueso
2017-04-07 10:08 ` Dilger, Andreas
2017-04-07 10:08 ` [lustre-devel] " Dilger, Andreas
2017-04-19 12:37 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2017-04-20 17:13 ` [PATCH v2 -tip 0/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock Davidlohr Bueso
2017-04-20 17:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-20 18:36 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2017-04-20 19:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-05-15 9:19 ` Davidlohr Bueso
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170419123735.GB5730@worktop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.