[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140810081425.GT9918@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 10:14:25 +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 06:29:24PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 08:24:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 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?
>
> I have to defer to Steven and Masami on this one, but I would guess that
> they want the ability to trace the idle loop for the same reasons they
> stated earlier.
want want want, I want a damn pony but somehow I'm not getting one. Why
are they getting this?
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists