Re: [PATCH 2/2] [RFC] reservation: add suppport for read-only access using rcu

On 04/10/2014 01:08 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > On 04/10/2014 12:07 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >> Hey, >> >> op 10-04-14 10:46, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>> Hi! >>> >>> Ugh. This became more complicated than I thought, but I'm OK with moving >>> TTM over to fence while we sort out >>> how /

Re: [PATCH 2/2] [RFC] reservation: add suppport for read-only access using rcu

On 04/10/2014 12:07 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Hey, > > op 10-04-14 10:46, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >> Hi! >> >> Ugh. This became more complicated than I thought, but I'm OK with moving >> TTM over to fence while we sort out >> how / if we're going to use this. >> >> While reviewing, it

Re: [PATCH 2/2] [RFC] reservation: add suppport for read-only access using rcu

Hey, op 10-04-14 10:46, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: Hi! Ugh. This became more complicated than I thought, but I'm OK with moving TTM over to fence while we sort out how / if we're going to use this. While reviewing, it struck me that this is kind of error-prone, and hard to follow since we're

Re: [PATCH 2/2] [RFC] reservation: add suppport for read-only access using rcu

Hi! Ugh. This became more complicated than I thought, but I'm OK with moving TTM over to fence while we sort out how / if we're going to use this. While reviewing, it struck me that this is kind of error-prone, and hard to follow since we're operating on a structure that may be continually

Re: [PATCH 2/2] [RFC] reservation: add suppport for read-only access using rcu

Hi! Ugh. This became more complicated than I thought, but I'm OK with moving TTM over to fence while we sort out how / if we're going to use this. While reviewing, it struck me that this is kind of error-prone, and hard to follow since we're operating on a structure that may be continually

Re: [PATCH 2/2] [RFC] reservation: add suppport for read-only access using rcu

Hey, op 10-04-14 10:46, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: Hi! Ugh. This became more complicated than I thought, but I'm OK with moving TTM over to fence while we sort out how / if we're going to use this. While reviewing, it struck me that this is kind of error-prone, and hard to follow since we're

Re: [PATCH 2/2] [RFC] reservation: add suppport for read-only access using rcu

On 04/10/2014 12:07 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: Hey, op 10-04-14 10:46, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: Hi! Ugh. This became more complicated than I thought, but I'm OK with moving TTM over to fence while we sort out how / if we're going to use this. While reviewing, it struck me that this is

Re: [PATCH 2/2] [RFC] reservation: add suppport for read-only access using rcu

On 04/10/2014 01:08 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: On 04/10/2014 12:07 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: Hey, op 10-04-14 10:46, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: Hi! Ugh. This became more complicated than I thought, but I'm OK with moving TTM over to fence while we sort out how / if we're going to use

[PATCH 2/2] [RFC] reservation: add suppport for read-only access using rcu

This adds 3 more functions to deal with rcu. reservation_object_wait_timeout_rcu() will wait on all fences of the reservation_object, without obtaining the ww_mutex. reservation_object_test_signaled_rcu() will test if all fences of the reservation_object are signaled without using the ww_mutex.

[PATCH 2/2] [RFC] reservation: add suppport for read-only access using rcu

This adds 3 more functions to deal with rcu. reservation_object_wait_timeout_rcu() will wait on all fences of the reservation_object, without obtaining the ww_mutex. reservation_object_test_signaled_rcu() will test if all fences of the reservation_object are signaled without using the ww_mutex.