> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:33:23AM +0200, Nadia Derbey wrote:
> >
> >>Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 07:18 +0200, Nadia Derbey wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 18:17 +0200,
Nadia.Derbey@bull.net wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Here is finally the ipc ridr-based implementation I was talking about
> >>>>>>last
> >>>>>>week (see
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/4/208).
> >>>>>>I couldn't avoid much of the code duplication, but at least made
> >>>>>>things
> >>>>>>incremental.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Does somebody now a test suite that exists for the idr API, that I
> >>>>>>could
> >>>>>>run on this new api?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Mike, can you try to run it on your victim: I had such a hard time
> >>>>>>building
> >>>>>>this patch, that I couldn't re-run the test on my 8-core with this new
> >>>>>>version. So the last results I have are for 2.6.25-rc3-mm1.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Also, I think a careful review should be done to avoid introducing
> >>>>>>yet other
> >>>>>>problems :-(
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Why duplicate the whole thing, when we converted the Radix tree to be
> >>>>>RCU safe we did it in-place. Is there a reason this is not done for
> >>>>>idr?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>I did that because I wanted to go fast and try to fix the performance
> >>>>problem we have with sysV ipc's. I didn't want to introduce (yet other)
> >>>>regressions in the code that uses idr's today and that works well ;-)
> >>>>May be in the future if this rcu based api appears to be ok, we can
> >>>>replace one with the other?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>From what I can see the API doesn't change at all,
> >>
> >>Well, 1 interface changes, 1 is added and another one went away:
> >>
> >>1) for the preload part (it becomes like the radix-tree preload part):
> >>
> >>int idr_pre_get(struct idr *, gfp_t);
> >>would become
> >>int idr_pre_get(gfp_t);
> >>
> >>2) idr_pre_get_end() is added (same as radix_tree_preload_end()).
> >>
> >>3) The idr_init() disappears.
> >>
> >>You might see that other interfaces are not provided by ridr, but this
> >>is only because I've taken those that are useful for the ipc part (so
> >>should not be a problem to make the whole thing rcu safe).
> >
> >
> >Part of this is because you need to allow the caller to choose the
> >locking for updates. Mightn't it be better to have both styles of
> >API, and share the bit-twiddling and tree-walking code?
>
> That's what I wanted to get to. But it is very hard to do code
> factorization since
> 1. the routines use pointers to different structures and access to these
> piinters can be anywhere in the routines.
> 2. we may have rcu assignment instead of direct pointer assignements
> anywhere in these routines.
>
> In a first try, I finally ended up with huuuuge macros that wouldn't
> have been accepted (I attached one of the patches if interested).
