[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1317766355.32543.38.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 00:12:35 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Quick review of -rt RCU-related patches
On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 00:05 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > peter_zijlstra-frob-rcu.patch
> >
> > Looks OK. Hmmm... Should this one go to mainline?
> > Oh, looks equivalent, actually. So why the change?
>
> Peter ?
- if (in_irq() || in_serving_softirq()) {
+ if (preempt_count() & (HARDIRQ_MASK | SOFTIRQ_OFFSET)) {
For !rt its equivalent yes, for rt otoh its not:
int in_serving_softirq(void)
{
int res;
preempt_disable();
res = __get_cpu_var(local_softirq_runner) == current;
preempt_enable();
return res;
}
However invoke_softirq() will still add SOFTIRQ_OFFSET so we need to
look at that to avoid recursion issues.
The changelog describes this. So this change is a direct consequence of
-rt frobbing the softirq stuff and thus isn't needed upstream.
--
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