[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1304292356220.1822@ja.ssi.bg>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:08:18 +0300 (EEST)
From: Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>, dhaval.giani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ipvs: Use cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper when dumping
connections
Hello,
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 02:32:48PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> >
> > So, I assume, to help realtime kernels and rcu_barrier
> > it is not a good idea to guard rcu_read_unlock with checks.
> > I see that rcu_read_unlock will try to reschedule in the
> > !CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU case (via preempt_enable), can we
> > use ifdefs to avoid double TIF_NEED_RESCHED check?:
> >
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > #if !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT) || defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU)
>
> I would instead suggest something like:
>
> #ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
>
> But yes, in the CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU case, the cond_resched() is not
> needed.
Hm, is this correct? If I follow the ifdefs
preempt_schedule is called when CONFIG_PREEMPT is
defined _and_ CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU is not defined.
Your example for CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU is the opposite to this?
> Thanx, Paul
>
> > cond_resched();
> > #endif
> > rcu_read_lock();
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
--
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