[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1346938342.18408.3.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 15:32:22 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
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,
sbw@....edu, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/23] rcu: Move RCU grace-period
initialization into a kthread
On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 11:18 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> +static int rcu_gp_kthread(void *arg)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> + struct rcu_data *rdp;
> + struct rcu_node *rnp;
> + struct rcu_state *rsp = arg;
> +
> + for (;;) {
> +
> + /* Handle grace-period start. */
> + rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp);
> + for (;;) {
> + wait_event_interruptible(rsp->gp_wq, rsp->gp_flags);
> + if (rsp->gp_flags)
> + break;
> + flush_signals(current);
> + }
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
You're in a kthread, it should be impossible for IRQs to be disabled
here, no? Similar for most (all) other sites in this function.
Using the unconditional IRQ disable/enable is generally faster.
--
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