On 08/16/2011 05:29 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> + :: (in_registry[0] == 0&& in_registry[1] == 0) ->
> +progress:
> +#ifndef INJ_LATE_DEC
> + gp_futex = 0;
> +#endif
> + gp = !gp;
Shouldn't you flip the gp for both steps of synchronize_rcu ? Here, it
looks like you only flip gp after the reader passes through both of the
checks, which defeats the purpose the 2-phase grace period.
Other comments are more or less trivial (i.e. you are right :)), so I'll
just answer a few.
Here, I flip gp after both readers have passed through a grace period.
Note that the waiter process doesn't model synchronize_rcu, it models
update_counter_and_wait.
This is because if you have only one writer, and no threads going
online/offline, there is no difference between an infinite sequence of
synchronize_rcu and an infinite sequence of update_counter_and_wait: the
latter is just two copies of the former, back to back.
for consistency, you seem to use "in_registry[1]" and "in_registry[1] ==
1" for pretty much the same thing. Is there a reason why they differ ?
No, I should always use == 1.
Paolo
_______________________________________________
ltt-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
