[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130501151752.GA7521@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 17:17:53 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper
On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 05:46:37AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> If the only goal is to allow preemption, and if long grace periods are
> not a concern, then this alternate approach would work fine as well.
Hmm.. if that were the goal I'd like it to have a different name;
cond_resched*() has always been about preemption.
> Of course, both approaches assume that the caller is in a place
> where having all RCU-protected data disappear is OK!
Quite :-)
--
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