[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130812135544.GG27162@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:55:44 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] rcu: eliminate deadlock for rcu read site
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 05:31:27PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 08/09/2013 04:40 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > One problem here -- it may take quite some time for a set_need_resched()
> > to take effect. This is especially a problem for RCU priority boosting,
> > but can also needlessly delay preemptible-RCU grace periods because
> > local_irq_restore() and friends don't check the TIF_NEED_RESCHED bit.
>
>
> The final effect of deboosting(rt_mutex_unlock()) is also accomplished
> via set_need_resched()/set_tsk_need_resched().
> set_need_resched() is enough for RCU priority boosting issue here.
But there's a huge difference between the boosting and deboosting side
of things. rcu_read_unlock_special() starts the boost, the deboosting
only matters if/when you reschedule.
--
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