[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130503180926.GA32350@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 20:09:26 +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
> This happens in only two cases:
>
> 1. CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=n kernels. But in this case, rcu_read_unlock()
> and rcu_read_lock() are free, at least for CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=n
> kernels. And if you have CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y, any contribution
> from rcu_read_unlock() and rcu_read_lock() will be in the noise.
Oh argh.. I completely overlooked that rcu_read_{,un}lock() are NOPs for
PREEMPT=n kernels.
/me crawls back under his stone..
--
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