[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1346942162.18408.25.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:36:02 +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,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 23/23] rcu: Simplify quiescent-state
detection
On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 11:18 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
>
> The current quiescent-state detection algorithm is needlessly
> complex.
Heh! Be careful, we might be led into believing all this RCU is actually
really rather simple and this complexity is a bug on your end ;-)
> It records the grace-period number corresponding to
> the quiescent state at the time of the quiescent state, which
> works, but it seems better to simply erase any record of previous
> quiescent states at the time that the CPU notices the new grace
> period. This has the further advantage of removing another piece
> of RCU for which lockless reasoning is required.
So why didn't you do that from the start? :-)
That is, I'm curious to know some history, why was it so and what led
you to this insight?
--
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