[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1332851167.23924.125.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:26:07 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, patches@...aro.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] rcu: Make __rcu_read_lock() inlinable
On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 22:15 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hmmm... I am not yet sure whether it is easier to make RCU use legal
> in switch_to() or to detect it. I am inclined to take whatever course
> is easiest, which is likely to make it legal. :-/
We could just declare that we do not allow tracepoints in arch specific
"switch_to" code. Then you shouldn't need to worry about RCU in
switch_to().
sched_rcu can still work there correct? That is, a synchronize_sched()
should not be affected. As that is needed for the function tracing, and
that may be called within a switch_to.
-- Steve
--
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