[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130501091012.GB28253@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 11:10:12 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.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 Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:52:38AM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Simon Horman wrote:
>
> > > > +static void inline cond_resched_rcu_lock(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (need_resched()) {
> > >
> > > Ops, it should be without above need_resched.
> >
> > Thanks, to clarify, just this:
> >
> > static void inline cond_resched_rcu_lock(void)
> > {
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > #ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> > cond_resched();
> > #endif
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > }
>
> Yes, thanks!
OK, now I'm confused.. PREEMPT_RCU would preempt in any case, so why bother
dropping rcu_read_lock() at all?
That is; the thing that makes sense to me is:
static void inline cond_resched_rcu_lock(void)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
if (need_resched()) {
rcu_read_unlock();
cond_resched();
rcu_read_lock();
}
#endif /* CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU */
}
That would have an rcu_read_lock() break and voluntary preemption point for
non-preemptible RCU and not bother with the stuff for preemptible RCU.
--
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