forked from luck/tmp_suning_uos_patched
rcu classic: simplify the next pending batch
use a batch number(rcp->pending) instead of a flag(rcp->next_pending) rcu_start_batch() need to change this flag, so mb()s is needed for memory-access safe. but(after this patch applied) rcu_start_batch() do not change this batch number(rcp->pending), rcp->pending is managed by __rcu_process_callbacks only, and troublesome mb()s are eliminated. And codes look simpler and clearer. Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com> Cc: Gautham Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com> Cc: Dhaval Giani <dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
This commit is contained in:
parent
5b664cb235
commit
3cac97cbb1
|
@ -45,7 +45,7 @@
|
|||
struct rcu_ctrlblk {
|
||||
long cur; /* Current batch number. */
|
||||
long completed; /* Number of the last completed batch */
|
||||
int next_pending; /* Is the next batch already waiting? */
|
||||
long pending; /* Number of the last pending batch */
|
||||
|
||||
int signaled;
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -60,12 +60,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_lock_map);
|
|||
static struct rcu_ctrlblk rcu_ctrlblk = {
|
||||
.cur = -300,
|
||||
.completed = -300,
|
||||
.pending = -300,
|
||||
.lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(&rcu_ctrlblk.lock),
|
||||
.cpumask = CPU_MASK_NONE,
|
||||
};
|
||||
static struct rcu_ctrlblk rcu_bh_ctrlblk = {
|
||||
.cur = -300,
|
||||
.completed = -300,
|
||||
.pending = -300,
|
||||
.lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(&rcu_bh_ctrlblk.lock),
|
||||
.cpumask = CPU_MASK_NONE,
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
@ -276,14 +278,8 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_data *rdp)
|
|||
*/
|
||||
static void rcu_start_batch(struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp)
|
||||
{
|
||||
if (rcp->next_pending &&
|
||||
if (rcp->cur != rcp->pending &&
|
||||
rcp->completed == rcp->cur) {
|
||||
rcp->next_pending = 0;
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* next_pending == 0 must be visible in
|
||||
* __rcu_process_callbacks() before it can see new value of cur.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
smp_wmb();
|
||||
rcp->cur++;
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
|
@ -441,16 +437,14 @@ static void __rcu_process_callbacks(struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp,
|
|||
|
||||
/* determine batch number */
|
||||
rdp->batch = rcp->cur + 1;
|
||||
/* see the comment and corresponding wmb() in
|
||||
* the rcu_start_batch()
|
||||
*/
|
||||
smp_rmb();
|
||||
|
||||
if (!rcp->next_pending) {
|
||||
if (rcu_batch_after(rdp->batch, rcp->pending)) {
|
||||
/* and start it/schedule start if it's a new batch */
|
||||
spin_lock(&rcp->lock);
|
||||
rcp->next_pending = 1;
|
||||
rcu_start_batch(rcp);
|
||||
if (rcu_batch_after(rdp->batch, rcp->pending)) {
|
||||
rcp->pending = rdp->batch;
|
||||
rcu_start_batch(rcp);
|
||||
}
|
||||
spin_unlock(&rcp->lock);
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user