[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140630202420.GG4603@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:24:21 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] rcu: uninline rcu_lock_acquire() and
rcu_lock_release()
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:18:37PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> May be correct this time ;) Based on paulmck/linux-rcu.git rcu/next.
>
> 2/2 is new and hopefully trivial. But! the numbers look suspiciously
> good, I do not understand where does the difference come from...
Probably from rcu_dereference_raw() and rcu_dereference_check(..., 1). ;-)
Queued and kicked off testing, both mine and (indirectly) Fengguang's.
Thanx, Paul
--
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