[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110316040308.GC2273@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:03:08 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/1] rcu: introduce kfree_rcu()
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 02:11:33PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mardi 15 mars 2011 à 17:46 +0800, Lai Jiangshan a écrit :
>
>
> > --- a/kernel/rcutiny.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcutiny.c
> > @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ static void rcu_process_callbacks(struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp)
> > prefetch(next);
> > debug_rcu_head_unqueue(list);
> > local_bh_disable();
> > - list->func(list);
> > + __rcu_reclaim(list);
> > local_bh_enable();
> > list = next;
> > RCU_TRACE(cb_count++);
>
> Paul, I am just wondering why we disable BH before calling list->func()
>
> This should be done in callbacks that really need it ?
>
> At least the disable/enable pair is not necessary before calling kfree()
Good point, we could bury the enable/disable pair in __rcu_reclaim().
Lai, am I forgetting any reason why we disable BH?
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