[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131008163447.GN5790@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:34:47 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
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 Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 05:33:25PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/08, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > I think Linus meant to have rcu_sync_{enter,exit} as inlines with a
> > const enum argument for the gp_type.
> >
> > That said; yes that will generate better code, but also more code, and
> > like Steven already argued performance isn't really an issue here since
> > we're going to potentially sleep for a rather long time.
>
> Yes, I do not think that we should make them "inline". Plus we need the
> non-inline rcu_sync_func() anyway.
Yep. Now if it was rcu_read_lock() rather than synchronize_rcu(),
it would be different. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
> Thanks again for the last series you sent.
>
> 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