[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140723134116.GP11241@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:41:16 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
"open list:READ-COPY UPDATE..." <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/16] rcu: Remove redundant check for an online CPU
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 09:23:47AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 01:09:41AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> >> rcu_prcess_callbacks() is the softirq handler for RCU which is raised from
> >> invoke_rcu_core() which is called from __call_rcu_core().
> >>
> >> Each of these three functions checks if the cpu is online. We can remove the
> >> redundant ones. This commit removes one of these redundant check.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>
> >
> > Sorry, but no. There can be a long delay between raise_softirq() and
> > this function starting, particularly if ksoftirqd gets involved. The
> > CPU could easily go offline in the meantime.
> >
>
> That makes sense. I guess one of the other two checks in
> __call_rcu_core() or invoke_rcu_core() can go then?
What would have to be the case for this suggested change to be safe?
Does that condition in fact hold?
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