[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YTv2wFoaVW-1yv_S5pRo85Tiad-B4u4EaYBdCx5_KWRkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2018 19:31:37 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question about ->head field of rcu_segcblist
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 7:30 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I was parsing the Data-Structures document and had a question about
> the following "Important note" text.
>
> Could it be clarified in the below text better why "remaining
> callbacks are placed back on the RCU_DONE_TAIL segment", is a reason
> for not depending on ->head for determining if no callbacks are
> associated with the rcu_segcblist? If callbacks are added back to the
> DONE_TAIL segment, then I would think rcu_head should be != NULL.
> Infact the "rsclp->head = *rsclp->tails[RCU_DONE_TAIL];" in
> rcu_segcblist_extract_done_cbs should set the ->head to NULL if I
> understand correctly.
Just to clarify, I meant set to NULL assuming all cbs were done
waiting and ready to be invoked.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists