Mirror of the lttng-dev mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: siddharthteotia@gmail.com (siddharth teotia)
Subject: [lttng-dev] RCU Question
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:10:27 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJw6sH0kFFVvmWm2vRQ+KNTgJaKVXS47OCATY2zHTA0AiSipiQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJw6sH0=pZX__YaeMwozF673u3Dyn7Jzp3g9q2FuYurThO6paw@mail.gmail.com>

The mail was accidentally sent. Here is more info:

My question really is that when writing a user space application that
leverages RCU, how do I ensure that I am using the proper
flavor/implementation of RCU ? I don't think so I can go ahead with
non-preemptive RCU. And the user space paper does not really tell or
distinguish clearly as to which of the following -- QSBR, MB, BP, signal
can be used for preemptive environments and do not restrict the reader to
not block or not sleep ?

Thanks,
Siddharth

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:07 PM, siddharth teotia <
siddharthteotia at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>
> I recently started exploring RCU to build a lock free hash table. I have
> read quite a bit of literature from LWN on RCU, its usage, API etc. I have
> the following question for which I have had mixed answers online:
>
> Does the user space implementation of RCU liburcu take care of preemptive
> v/s non-preemptive flavors of RCU. From what I understand RCU can be
> broadly divided into:
>
> 1. Classic RCU - High Performance but suitable for non-preemptive
> environments.
> 2. Preemptible RCU - Permits the reader to block on a resource or the read
> side critical sections to be preempted. But still does not allow any kind
> of sleep(). Moreover there seems to be some sort of limitation on the
> nature of blocking that can happen within RCU read side critical section.
> 3. Sleepable RCU - Seems to me an augmentation of preemptible RCU.
>
> The paper that describes the user space implementation of RCU suggests 4
> different flavors -- QSBR, Memory Barrier based, Bullet Proof, and Signal
> based.
>
> I don't think so in my application I can afford to not have the readers
> block or even sleep. If the reader wants to take some orthogonal lock/latch
> on an entirely different resource, it might end waiting for it.
>
> And because
>
>
>


-- 
*Best Regards,*
*SIDDHARTH TEOTIA*
*2008C6PS540G*
*BITS PILANI- GOA CAMPUS*

*+91 87911 75932*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.lttng.org/pipermail/lttng-dev/attachments/20160429/7a67a790/attachment.html>


      reply	other threads:[~2016-04-29 19:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-04-29 19:07 siddharth teotia
2016-04-29 19:10 ` siddharth teotia [this message]

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=CAJw6sH0kFFVvmWm2vRQ+KNTgJaKVXS47OCATY2zHTA0AiSipiQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=siddharthteotia@gmail.com \
    /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