[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140809182400.GJ3588@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2014 20:24:00 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.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, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 tip/core/rcu 1/9] rcu: Add call_rcu_tasks()
On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 08:19:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> How about we simply assume 'idle' code, as defined by the rcu idle hooks
> are safe? Why do we want to bend over backwards to cover this?
The thing is, we already have the special rcu trace hooks for tracing
inside this rcu-idle section, so why go beyond this now?
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists