mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Boqun Feng <boqun@kernel.org>
To: Gary Guo <gary@garyguo.net>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Bradley Morgan <brads@mainlining.org>,
	rcu@vger.kernel.org, lkmm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH hazptr 4/4] hazptr: Introduce "try acquire" fast path, fallback to overflow list
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2026 17:32:11 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <arqIe2d8Koj857Kt@MacBook-0RXW5> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DLQX09XGAHDL.1LSFQH13SU7XR@garyguo.net>

On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 12:32:34PM +0100, Gary Guo wrote:
[...]
> >> For some context, the current Rust revocable implementation uses RCU, but this
> >> is limiting the case where it can be used. The current C revocable series in
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260912123529.7951-1-tzungbi@kernel.org/ uses SRCU.
> >> 
> >> I think this use case is a good one for hazptr, in fact, I have encouraged Alvin
> >> Sun to try it out and you can see an implementation (Rust) in here:
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20260326-b4-tyr-debugfs-v1-6-074badd18716@linux.dev/
> >> Although, over the course of the year, we have been reducing the amount of
> >> revocable usage and shifting to represent things with lifetime..
> >> 
> >
> > Paul asked me for the Rust usage a few days ago, and since we moved to
> > a lifetime based approach [1], which is better IMO, I don't think
> > switching to hazptr will should observable difference here, especially
> > for a real workload improvement. It's still worth trying to see how
> > hazptr in Rust would work for this, but it's less a sufficient condition
> > to merge hazptr from my understanding. Of course I could be wrong.
> >
> > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20260517000149.3226762-1-dakr@kernel.org/
> 
> What we get rid of is to use `Revocable` (or `DevRes`) to protect resources
> where we _know_ that the resource is alive (for example, in device private data,
> because it's teared down by driver-core on unbind).
> 
> However, there are cases where we can still have the `Revocable` pattern, for
> example when a class device is exposed to userspace and the bus device is
> unbinding. This is a pretty recurring pattern too, and cannot be handled via
> lifetime alone. This is what motivates the C revocable series.
> 

Not trying to discourage switching to hazptr in `Revocable`, but I think
the only shortcoming of RCU there is "unable to sleep while referencing
a `Revocable`", right? Certainly hazptr can help on that but so does
SRCU. I'm unsure hazptr can show observable advantages against SRCU
here. But I could be wrong.

Regards,
Boqun

> Best,
> Gary

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-09-28 15:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-27 15:51 [PATCH hazptr 0/4] Hazard pointer updates Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-09-27 15:51 ` [PATCH hazptr 1/4] hazptr: Fix two-phase hazptr_synchronize race with detach Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-09-27 15:51 ` [PATCH hazptr 2/4] compiler.h: Introduce ptr_eq() to preserve address dependency Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-09-27 15:51 ` [PATCH hazptr 3/4] Documentation: RCU: Refer to ptr_eq() Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-09-27 15:51 ` [PATCH hazptr 4/4] hazptr: Introduce "try acquire" fast path, fallback to overflow list Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-09-27 16:40   ` Boqun Feng
2026-09-27 17:15     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-09-27 17:24       ` Boqun Feng
2026-09-27 17:36         ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-09-27 18:16           ` Boqun Feng
2026-09-27 17:26       ` Boqun Feng
2026-09-27 22:39       ` Gary Guo
2026-09-28  9:12         ` Boqun Feng
2026-09-28 11:32           ` Gary Guo
2026-09-28 14:56             ` Bradley Morgan
2026-09-28 15:32             ` Boqun Feng [this message]
2026-09-28  9:27     ` Kunwu Chan
2026-09-27 16:07 ` [PATCH hazptr 0/4] Hazard pointer updates Bradley Morgan
2026-09-27 16:27   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-09-27 16:33     ` Bradley Morgan
2026-09-27 16:45       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-09-27 16:15 ` Boqun Feng
2026-09-27 16:20   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2026-09-27 16:22     ` Bradley Morgan

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=arqIe2d8Koj857Kt@MacBook-0RXW5 \
    --to=boqun@kernel.org \
    --cc=brads@mainlining.org \
    --cc=gary@garyguo.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lkmm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®