[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110617210039.GK2258@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:00:39 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: 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,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH rcu/urgent] Banishing kthreads
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 04:35:23PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > This patchset banishes RCU kthreads from non-RCU_BOOST kernel threads.
> > The two patches are as follows:
> >
> > 1. Minimal patch that #ifdefs out the kthread code.
> >
> > 2. Code-movement patch that puts the code #ifdefed out above
> > under existing #ifdefs in kernel/rcutree_plugin.h.
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I'm wondering about the impact of this change: so I guess that before
> the change, it was OK to go on a waitqueue (might_sleep()) within a
> call_rcu callback, but since the execution now moves to a softirq
> handler in non-RCU_BOOST kernels, it's not allowed anymore. I might be
> missing something though: was sleeping within call_rcu handlers already
> prohibited ? (never had to sleep in those, so I never had to check if it
> was allowed)
The callbacks are still executed in BH context, so any attempt to
sleep should get a warning message. Also, it switched to kthread quite
recently, so there hasn't been time for anyone to get used to it. ;-)
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