[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120308194414.GA2412@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 11:44:14 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.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, Mar 06, 2012 at 11:47:25AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 17:57 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > o The srcu callback is new thing, I hope it is completely preemptible,
> > even sleepable. It does in this implemetation, I use work_struct
> > to stand for every srcu callback.
>
> I didn't need the callbacks to sleep too, I just needed the read-side
> srcu bit.
>
> There's an argument against making the callbacks able to sleep like that
> in that you typically want to minimize the amount of work done in the
> callbacks, allowing them to sleep invites to callbacks that do _way_ too
> much work.
>
> I haven't made my mind up if I care yet.. :-)
I prefer that they don't sleep. Easy to push anything that needs to
sleep off to a work queue. And allowing sleeping in an SRCU callback
function sounds like something that could cause serious problems down
the road.
--
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