From: Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org>
To: lbj <lbj137@yahoo.com>, paulmck <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: lttng-dev <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org>
Subject: Re: [lttng-dev] QSBR urcu read lock question
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 08:20:42 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1791312961.77601.1618489242390.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <793BB53F-CE1B-4A8A-8D6D-850C7A144DBB@yahoo.com>
----- On Apr 13, 2021, at 11:19 PM, lttng-dev lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have two different entities that are both protected by QSBR rcu: a policy and
> a hashtable. In the reclamation thread for the policy I would like to take a
> read lock so that I can safely iterate through the hashtable. I dont see
> anything wrong with this, but I just wanted to make sure it was ok since taking
> an rcu read lock in an rcu reclamation thread seems like it may be a bit
> suspect. Thanks for any insights, let me know if clarification is needed!
When you say "the reclamation thread for the policy", do you refer to a call-rcu
worker thread ?
Also, you are aware that RCU read-side lock/unlock are effectively no-ops for
QSBR rcu, right ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
_______________________________________________
lttng-dev mailing list
lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org
https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-15 12:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <13D87E55-7D1B-49B0-9555-656A837ADEB3.ref@yahoo.com>
2021-04-05 17:43 ` [lttng-dev] QSBR urcu question lbj via lttng-dev
2021-04-06 20:05 ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev
2021-04-14 3:19 ` [lttng-dev] QSBR urcu read lock question lbj via lttng-dev
2021-04-15 12:20 ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev [this message]
2021-04-15 12:41 ` lbj via lttng-dev
2021-04-15 13:04 ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev
2021-04-15 14:54 ` lbj via lttng-dev
2021-04-15 16:00 ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev
2021-04-15 18:11 ` lbj via lttng-dev
2021-04-15 19:26 ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev
2021-04-15 20:58 ` lbj via lttng-dev
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=1791312961.77601.1618489242390.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com \
--to=lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org \
--cc=lbj137@yahoo.com \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=paulmck@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).