[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1270139774.1598.130.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 18:36:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [COUNTERPATCH] mm: avoid overflowing preempt_count() in
mmu_take_all_locks()
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 09:15 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > I don't understand. I thought the problem was that the locks were
> > taken inside an rcu critical section; switching to srcu would fix
> > that. But how is call_rcu_preempt() related? Grepping a bit, what
> > is call_rcu_preempt()? my tree doesn't have it.
>
> I believe that Peter is referring to the RCU implementation you get
> with CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU, which currently depends on CONFIG_PREEMPT.
> The other implementation is CONFIG_TREE_RCU, which is usually called
> "classic RCU".
Right, so I've been nudging Paul a while to make it so that we always
have preemptible rcu available and that only the default interface
switches between sched/classic and preempt.
Currently we already have:
call_rcu_sched()
call_rcu_bh()
call_rcu() (depends on CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU)
I'm saying it would be nice to also have:
call_rcu_preempt()
--
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