Re: [PATCH kernel] rcu: Define lockless version of list_for_each_entry_rcu

2015-12-21 Thread Alexey Kardashevskiy
On 12/08/2015 04:46 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 04:20:03PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 06:19:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: As in the following? (And yes, I was confused by the fact that the docbook header was in front of a

Re: [PATCH kernel] rcu: Define lockless version of list_for_each_entry_rcu

2015-12-21 Thread Alexey Kardashevskiy
On 12/08/2015 04:46 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 04:20:03PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 06:19:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: As in the following? (And yes, I was confused by the fact that the docbook header was in front of a

Re: [PATCH kernel] rcu: Define lockless version of list_for_each_entry_rcu

2015-12-07 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 04:20:03PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: > On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 06:19:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > As in the following? (And yes, I was confused by the fact that the > > docbook header was in front of a differently-named macro!) > > That looks great!

Re: [PATCH kernel] rcu: Define lockless version of list_for_each_entry_rcu

2015-12-07 Thread Paul Mackerras
On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 06:19:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > As in the following? (And yes, I was confused by the fact that the > docbook header was in front of a differently-named macro!) > > Thanx, Paul That looks great! Have

Re: [PATCH kernel] rcu: Define lockless version of list_for_each_entry_rcu

2015-12-07 Thread Paul Mackerras
On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 06:19:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > As in the following? (And yes, I was confused by the fact that the > docbook header was in front of a differently-named macro!) > > Thanx, Paul That looks great! Have

Re: [PATCH kernel] rcu: Define lockless version of list_for_each_entry_rcu

2015-12-07 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 04:20:03PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: > On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 06:19:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > As in the following? (And yes, I was confused by the fact that the > > docbook header was in front of a differently-named macro!) > > That looks great!

Re: [PATCH kernel] rcu: Define lockless version of list_for_each_entry_rcu

2015-12-05 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:30:06PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:39:15AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:13:28AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:17:17PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > > [snip] > > > >

Re: [PATCH kernel] rcu: Define lockless version of list_for_each_entry_rcu

2015-12-05 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:30:06PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:39:15AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:13:28AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:17:17PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > > [snip] > > > >

Re: [PATCH kernel] rcu: Define lockless version of list_for_each_entry_rcu

2015-11-30 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:39:15AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:13:28AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:17:17PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > [snip] > > > Still, is my approach correct? What does the comment for > > >

Re: [PATCH kernel] rcu: Define lockless version of list_for_each_entry_rcu

2015-11-30 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:39:15AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:13:28AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:17:17PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > [snip] > > > Still, is my approach correct? What does the comment for > > >

Re: [PATCH kernel] rcu: Define lockless version of list_for_each_entry_rcu

2015-11-29 Thread Paul Mackerras
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:13:28AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:17:17PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: [snip] > > Still, is my approach correct? What does the comment for > > lockless_dereference() actally mean - it won't work together with > > RCU at all or this

Re: [PATCH kernel] rcu: Define lockless version of list_for_each_entry_rcu

2015-11-29 Thread Paul Mackerras
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:13:28AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:17:17PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: [snip] > > Still, is my approach correct? What does the comment for > > lockless_dereference() actally mean - it won't work together with > > RCU at all or this

Re: [PATCH kernel] rcu: Define lockless version of list_for_each_entry_rcu

2015-11-18 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:17:17PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > On 11/04/2015 01:39 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > >On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:57:05 +1100 > >Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > > > >>This defines list_for_each_entry_lockless. This allows safe list > >>traversing in cases when

Re: [PATCH kernel] rcu: Define lockless version of list_for_each_entry_rcu

2015-11-18 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:17:17PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > On 11/04/2015 01:39 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > >On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:57:05 +1100 > >Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > > > >>This defines list_for_each_entry_lockless. This allows safe list > >>traversing in

Re: [PATCH kernel] rcu: Define lockless version of list_for_each_entry_rcu

2015-11-05 Thread Alexey Kardashevskiy
On 11/04/2015 01:39 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:57:05 +1100 Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: This defines list_for_each_entry_lockless. This allows safe list traversing in cases when lockdep() invocation is unwanted like real mode (MMU is off). Signed-off-by: Alexey

Re: [PATCH kernel] rcu: Define lockless version of list_for_each_entry_rcu

2015-11-05 Thread Alexey Kardashevskiy
On 11/04/2015 01:39 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:57:05 +1100 Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: This defines list_for_each_entry_lockless. This allows safe list traversing in cases when lockdep() invocation is unwanted like real mode (MMU is off). Signed-off-by:

Re: [PATCH kernel] rcu: Define lockless version of list_for_each_entry_rcu

2015-11-03 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:57:05 +1100 Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > This defines list_for_each_entry_lockless. This allows safe list > traversing in cases when lockdep() invocation is unwanted like > real mode (MMU is off). > > Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy > --- > > This is for VFIO

Re: [PATCH kernel] rcu: Define lockless version of list_for_each_entry_rcu

2015-11-03 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:57:05 +1100 Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > This defines list_for_each_entry_lockless. This allows safe list > traversing in cases when lockdep() invocation is unwanted like > real mode (MMU is off). > > Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy >

[PATCH kernel] rcu: Define lockless version of list_for_each_entry_rcu

2015-11-02 Thread Alexey Kardashevskiy
This defines list_for_each_entry_lockless. This allows safe list traversing in cases when lockdep() invocation is unwanted like real mode (MMU is off). Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy --- This is for VFIO acceleration in POWERKVM for pSeries guests. There is a KVM instance. There also can

[PATCH kernel] rcu: Define lockless version of list_for_each_entry_rcu

2015-11-02 Thread Alexey Kardashevskiy
This defines list_for_each_entry_lockless. This allows safe list traversing in cases when lockdep() invocation is unwanted like real mode (MMU is off). Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy --- This is for VFIO acceleration in POWERKVM for pSeries guests. There is a KVM instance.