[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:59:15 -0700
From: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/18] CFS Bandwidth Control v7.2
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 16:58 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> + rcu_read_lock();
>> + ret = walk_tg_tree_from(tg, tg_set_cfs_period_down, NULL, &period);
>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>
> rcu over a mutex doesn't really work in mainline, bah..
>
Isn't this the other way around though? We already hold the mutex so
we shouldn't be blocking within the RCU section.
rcu_lock here is only to stop nodes in the tree from disappearing
under us on the walk.
(FWIW this is the same as the rt_schedulable case)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists