[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110223201534.GX2163@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:15:34 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 11/11] rcu: move TREE_RCU from softirq
to kthread
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 08:23:50PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 13:19 -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> > this_cpu_inc is already percpu atomic. On x86 it is an instruction that
> > cannot be interrupted nor preempted while in progress.
>
> On x86, yes, but is this true for all architectures? I guess the
> fallback is implemented with local_irq_disable() which might be good
> enough for some but not for NMI usage.
Good point! Thankfully, no worries about NMI usage in this piece of
code. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
--
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