[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090224145035.GA12157@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:50:35 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vegard.nossum@...il.com,
mingo@...e.hu, stable@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
npiggin@...e.de, penberg@...helsinki.fi
Subject: Re: [PATCH] v2 Teach RCU that idle task is not quiscent state at
boot
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 09:08:54PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 03:02:56PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Tuesday 24 February 2009 07:43:32 Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -80,6 +81,10 @@ void wakeme_after_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
> > > void synchronize_rcu(void)
> > > {
> > > struct rcu_synchronize rcu;
> > > +
> > > + if (num_online_cpus() == 1)
> > > + return; /* If UP, synchronize_rcu() is a grace period! */
> > > +
> >
> > Nice patch... May I just suggest a comment to say that this is
> > also a correctness requirement due to the grace period holdoff
> > for early boot?
>
> Excellent point! If Ingo reports that this actually fixes the hang that
> he saw, I will add such a comment.
>
> (And glad you like the patch!)
Gah!!! I forgot about preemptable RCU, which the previous patch breaks
completely on single-CPU systems.
A fix is in the works.
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