[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150701140121.GC3717@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:01:22 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
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 RFC tip/core/rcu 0/5] Expedited grace periods encouraging
normal ones
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 12:12:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 08:37:01PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Wait, what? Why is anything using traditional (non-S) RCU while *any*
> > > lock is held?
> >
> > In their defense, it is a sleeplock that is never taken except when
> > rearranging networking configuration. Sometimes they need a grace period
> > under the lock. So synchronize_net() checks to see if RTNL is held, and
> > does a synchronize_rcu_expedited() if so and a synchronize_rcu() if not.
>
> Sounds vile.
OK, I'll bite. Exactly what seems especially vile about it?
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