[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 12:40:44 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, dhowells@...hat.com,
edumazet@...gle.com, darren@...art.com, sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Is it safe to enter an RCU read-side critical
section?
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 09:22:15 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> However, the API we are arguing about is deep within the implementation.
> It is not at the level of rcu_read_lock(). It is something that should
> not have that many invocations -- after all, the things using it are
> binding themselves unusually close to RCU.
>
Is it? I guess the question is, is dynamic ticks an extension of RCU,
or is it just using the RCU implementation as a convenience?
Also the OP patch is for function tracing, something not coupled by RCU
at all. Just a way to know if it is safe to call functions that use RCU
or not.
That can have "this_cpu()" by the way as a way to tell us that we must
disable preemption before hand. Which is what caused this thread to
start with, as it was suggested to combine rcu_is_cpu_idle() which
brought up why that function disables preemption.
-- Steve
--
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