[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090824154230.GE6677@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:42:30 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josht@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] v3 Simplify rcu_pending()/rcu_check_callbacks()
API
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 09:10:16AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-08-22 at 13:56 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > All calls from outside RCU are of the form:
> >
> > if (rcu_pending(cpu))
> > rcu_check_callbacks(cpu, user);
> >
> > This is silly, instead we put a call to rcu_pending() in
> > rcu_check_callbacks(),
>
> It could be non-silly if rcu_pending() were a very simple inline
> function, in that case it would avoid the full function call.
>
> Still in such a case you can make rcu_check_callbacks() the inline
> function which does the same and have the real function called somthing
> else.
>
> Anyway, its all moot since rcu_pending() wasn't a simple inline function
> anyway, so you've replaced two function calls with one, which seems
> good.
Indeed, there was a time when rcu_pending() was a much simpler function,
but those days are long past. ;-)
Thank you for looking this over!!!
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