[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1271400891.13059.186.camel@pasglop>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:54:51 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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 Thu, 2010-04-15 at 07:28 -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.
>
> Can the code in question accommodate these restrictions?
What we protect against is always code that hard-disable IRQs (though
there seem to be a bug in the hugepages code there...). Would that
work ?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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