[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1264432097.31321.409.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:08:17 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...e.hu, dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org,
dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] accelerate grace period if last
non-dynticked CPU
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 20:28 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > + /* Don't bother unless we are the last non-dyntick-idle CPU. */
> > + for_each_cpu(thatcpu, nohz_cpu_mask)
> > + if (thatcpu != cpu)
> > + return rcu_needs_cpu_quick_check(cpu);
>
> The comment and the code are not the same, I think.
>
I once heard this quote, but I don't know who said it:
"If the comment and the code do not match, they probably are both wrong"
Anyway, you are correct, the comment does not match, but I think the
code is wrong. The code returns if any cpu is in non-dyntick-idle state.
Reading the change log, that looks wrong. Perhaps this is what was
needed:
for_each_online_cpu(thatcpu) {
if (thatcpu != cpu && !cpumask_test_cpu(thatcpu, nohz_cpu_mask)
return rcu_needs_cpu_quick_check(cpu);
}
-- Steve
--
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