[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49C33928.1050806@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:35:20 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: dipankar@...ibm.com
CC: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question about usage of RCU in the input layer
Dipankar Sarma a écrit :
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 06:28:11AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
>> Hmm... point is to make linux boot as fast as possible, so ...
>>
>> Use a special variant of udelay() in offending drivers that make appropriate
>> RCU call to increment quiescent state ?
>
> It may not be safe to do this it is in a RCU read-side critical section.
Yes, this is why I suggested a variant of udelay, not udelay() itself,
used by selected drivers (probably not so many drivers hog cpu so long)
void udelay_rcu_quiescent(unsigned long usecs)
{
preempt_disable();
rcu_qsctr_inc(smp_processor_id());
preempt_enable();
udelay(usecs);
}
Or maybe we have a way to detect we are in a RCU-side critical section at runtime ?
void __udelay(unsigned long usecs)
{
if (!in_rcu_critical_section()) {
preempt_disable();
rcu_qsctr_inc(smp_processor_id());
preempt_enable();
}
...
}
Thank you
--
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