[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1271253110.32749.47.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:51:50 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] powerpc: Add rcu_read_lock() to gup_fast()
implementation
On Mon, 2010-04-12 at 20:43 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > So we might have to support the interrupt assumption, at least in some
> > form, with those guys...
>
> One way to make the interrupt assumption official is to use
> synchronize_sched() rather than synchronize_rcu().
Well, call_rcu_sched() then, because the current usage is to use
call_rcu() to free the page directories.
Paul, here is a call_rcu_sched() available in kernel/rcutree.c, but am I
right in reading that code that that would not be available for
preemptible RCU?
--
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