Re: [PATCH v5 04/45] percpu_rwlock: Implement the core design ofPer-CPU Reader-Writer Locks

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Sun Feb 10 2013 - 15:14:53 EST

On 02/11, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 02/09/2013 04:40 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> +static void announce_writer_inactive(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock)
> >> +{
> >> + unsigned int cpu;
> >> +
> >> + drop_writer_signal(pcpu_rwlock, smp_processor_id());
> >
> > Why do we drop ourselves twice? More to the point, why is it important to
> > drop ourselves first?
> >
> I don't see where we are dropping ourselves twice. Note that we are no longer
> in the cpu_online_mask, so the 'for' loop below won't include us. So we need
> to manually drop ourselves. It doesn't matter whether we drop ourselves first
> or later.

Yes, but this just reflects its usage in cpu-hotplug. cpu goes away under

Perhaps _write_lock/unlock shoud use for_each_possible_cpu() instead?

Hmm... I think this makes sense anyway. Otherwise, in theory,
percpu_write_lock(random_non_hotplug_lock) can race with cpu_up?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at