[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180923235512.GB4222@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2018 16:55:12 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question about ->head field of rcu_segcblist
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 07:31:37PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> 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.
Ah, good, then that is correct. But even then, being NULL doesn't mean
no callbacks because they might be temporarily held by rcu_do_batch().
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists