[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131005172118.GA18191@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2013 19:21:18 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] rcusync: introduce struct rcu_sync_ops
On 10/04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 12:38:37PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > As all the rcu_synchronization() methods (on non UP) are quite
> > > expensive, I doubt that this optimization is worth anything.
> >
> > Maybe. It just annoys me, because afaik, the function that gets called
> > is always static per callsite.
>
> Yes, very much so indeed. Worst is that we have no users of the regular
> RCU and RCU_BH variants and only included them for completeness since
> the general operation is just as valid for those.
And personally I think we should keep type/ops for completeness anyway,
even if we do not have RCU and RCU_BH users. But perhaps we can kill
RCU_SYNC and RCU_BH_SYNC enums/entries until we have a user.
Oleg.
--
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