[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48FF73C7.90709@colorfullife.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:41:11 +0200
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dipankar@...ibm.com,
josht@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, schamp@....com, niv@...ibm.com,
dvhltc@...ibm.com, ego@...ibm.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, peterz@...radead.org, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
andi@...stfloor.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Only once per such CPU every grace period -- seems in the noise to me.
> But I should revisit, as I have changed things quite a bit since I
> made that decision many weeks ago. ;-)
>
>
Another small point:
Does your implementation support rcu_check_callbacks() with cpu !=
smp_processor_id()?
I don't think my locking would support it properly.
Thus:
- cpu != smp_processor_id() doesn't work.
- stack space for a useless parameter.
- the explicit cpu parameter prevents the rcu code from using get_cpu_var().
What about modifying the rcu_check_callbacks() prototype? I'd propose to
remove the cpu parameter.
--
Manfred
--
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