[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1271427819.4807.2353.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:23:39 +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 Fri, 2010-04-16 at 07:17 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Of course, with call_rcu_sched(), the corresponding RCU read-side critical
> > > sections are non-preemptible. Therefore, in CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT, these
> > > read-side critical sections must use raw spinlocks.
> >
> > OK, so if we fully remove CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU (defaulting to y),
> > rename all the {call_rcu, rcu_read_lock, rcu_read_unlock,
> > synchronize_rcu} functions to {*}_preempt and then add a new
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU that simply maps {*} to either {*}_sched or
> > {*}_preempt, we've basically got what I've been asking for for a while,
> > no?
>
> What would rcu_read_lock_preempt() do in a !CONFIG_PREEMPT kernel?
Same as for a preempt one, since you'd have to be able to schedule()
while holding it to be able to do things like mutex_lock().
--
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