[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111121163745.GA2323@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:37:45 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nohz: Remove tick_nohz_idle_enter_norcu() /
tick_nohz_idle_exit_norcu()
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 04:23:51PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 09:28:19PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:46:58AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > 2011/11/19 Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 05:03:44PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:11:34PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > 4. Task A invokes a system call. If the system-call entry
> > code were to again invoke rcu_idle_enter(), then my patch
> > is required. If you check and avoid invoking rcu_idle_enter()
> > in this case, then my patch is not required.
>
> You mean rcu_idle_exit()? So yeah, since we have the tick running
> and thus RCU not in extended QS, we won't call rcu_idle_exit() on syscall
> entry.
OK, then I will drop my patch. ;-)
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