[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1367422195.11020.46.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 08:29:55 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>,
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper
On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 17:17 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.
BTW, I do not remember why cond_resched() is not an empty macro
when CONFIG_PREEMPT=y ?
--
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