[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1331047870.11248.314.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 16:31:10 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@...il.com>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/6] implement per-cpu&per-domain state machine
call_srcu()
On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 22:44 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >> + if ((++idle_loop & 0xF) == 0) {
> >> + spin_unlock_irq(&sp->gp_lock);
> >> + udelay(1);
> >> + spin_lock_irq(&sp->gp_lock);
> >> + }
> >
> > The purpose of this bit isn't quite clear to me, is this simply a lock
> > break?
>
> Yes, the main purpose is:
> make the time of sp->gp_lock short, can be determined.
either introduce cond_resched_lock_irq() or write something like:
if (need_resched() || spin_needbreak(&sp->gp_lock)) {
spin_unlock_irq(&sp->gp_lock);
cond_resched();
spin_lock_irq(&sp->gp_lock);
}
udelay(1) is complete nonsense..
--
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