From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com (Mathieu Desnoyers)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:22:55 -0400
Subject: [lttng-dev] [RFC] re-document rculfstack and even rename it
In-Reply-To: <50752928.3050006@cn.fujitsu.com>
References: <50752928.3050006@cn.fujitsu.com>
Message-ID: <20121011182255.GA19783@Krystal>

* Lai Jiangshan (laijs at cn.fujitsu.com) wrote:
> rculfstack is not really require RCU-only.
> 
> 1) cds_lfs_push_rcu() don't need any lock, don't need RCU nor other locks.

Good point ! I even documented this peculiarness in the
comment at the top of _cds_lfs_push_rcu().

> 2) cds_lfs_pop_rcu() don't only one of the following synchronization(not only RCU):
> 	A) use rcu_read_lock() to protect cds_lfs_pop_rcu() and use synchronize_rcu()
>            or call_rcu() to free the popped node. (current comments said we need this
>            synchronization, and thus we named this struct with rcu prefix. But actually,
> 	   the followings are OK, and are more popular/friendly)
> 	B) use mutexs/locks to protect cds_lfs_pop_rcu(), we can free to free/modify the
> 	   popped node any time, we don't need any synchronization when free them.
> 	C) only ONE thread can call cds_lfs_pop_rcu(). (multi-providers-single customer)
> 	D) others, like read-write locks.
> 
> I consider B) and C) are more popular. In linux kernel,
> kernel/task_work.c uses a hybird ways of B) and C).
> 
> I suggest to rename it, Or document B) and C) at least.

Yes, agreed! Do you suggest we introduce a "lfstack", and slowly
deprecate rculfstack ?

We could then document the various ways to protect "pop", and also
implement a "splice" operation while we are there.

Thoughts ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> Thanks,
> Lai
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lttng-dev mailing list
> lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org
> http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com