[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140801194417.GA27141@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 12:44:17 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
dvhart@...ux.intel.com, fweisbec@...il.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 tip/core/rcu 3/9] rcu: Add synchronous grace-period
waiting for RCU-tasks
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 11:32:51AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 05:09:26PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 07/31, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > +void synchronize_rcu_tasks(void)
> > > +{
> > > + /* Complain if the scheduler has not started. */
> > > + rcu_lockdep_assert(!rcu_scheduler_active,
> > > + "synchronize_rcu_tasks called too soon");
> > > +
> > > + /* Wait for the grace period. */
> > > + wait_rcu_gp(call_rcu_tasks);
> > > +}
> >
> > Btw, what about CONFIG_PREEMPT=n ?
> >
> > I mean, can't synchronize_rcu_tasks() be synchronize_sched() in this
> > case?
>
> Excellent point, indeed it can!
>
> And if I do it right, it will make CONFIG_TASKS_RCU=y safe for kernel
> tinification. ;-)
Unless, that is, we need to wait for trampolines in the idle loop...
Sounds like a question for Steven. ;-)
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