[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160301131724.GU6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 14:17:24 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Ricky Liang <jcliang@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFCv7 PATCH 03/10] sched: scheduler-driven cpu frequency
selection
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 04:34:23PM -0800, Steve Muckle wrote:
> >> + /*
> >> + * Ensure that all CPUs currently part of this policy are out
> >> + * of the hot path so that if this policy exits we can free gd.
> >> + */
> >> + preempt_disable();
> >> + smp_call_function_many(policy->cpus, dummy, NULL, true);
> >> + preempt_enable();
> >
> > I'm not sure how this works, can you please tell me?
>
> Peter correctly interpreted my intentions.
>
> The RCU possibility also crossed my mind. They both seemed like a bit of
> a hack to me - this wouldn't really be doing any RCU per se, rather
> relying on its implementation. I'll switch to RCU since that seems to be
> preferred though. It's certainly cleaner to write.
RCU is widely used in this fashion. synchronize_sched() is explicitly
constructed to sync against preempt disable sections. This is not an
implementation detail.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists