[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081027164529.GC6783@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:45:29 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.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
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:24:30PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> Hmmm... Looks like rcu_pending is also always called with its cpu
>> parameter set to the current CPU, and same for rcu_needs_cpu().
>> And given that all the external uses of rcu_check_callbacks() are
>> of the following form:
>>
>> if (rcu_pending(cpu))
>> rcu_check_callbacks(cpu, whatever);
>>
>>
>> perhaps rcu_pending() should be an internal-to-RCU API invoked from
>> rcu_check_callbacks().
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
> From my point of view: Yes, change it.
>
> In the long run, I'd like to move the stall detector code to rcupdate.c,
> with an 'rcu_cpu_missing' callback. That one would need a cpu flag, but
> that's a new function.
Agreed. Perhaps a good change to make while introducing stall detection
to preemptable RCU -- there would then be three examples, which should
allow good generalization.
Thanx, Paul
--
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