[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ftb0d47a.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:27:21 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: paulmck@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rcu@...r.kernel.org
Cc: luto@...nel.org, x86@...nel.org, frederic@...nel.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, joel@...lfernandes.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, will@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/entry: Ask RCU if it needs rcu_irq_{enter,exit}()
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> writes:
> +static __always_inline bool rcu_needs_irq_enter(void)
> +{
> + return !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TINY_RCU) &&
> + (context_tracking_enabled_cpu(smp_processor_id()) || is_idle_task(current));
This reintroduces the #PF problem which started the whole conditional
RCU entry discussion:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200515235125.628629605@linutronix.de/
and which made us all come to the conclusion that we can do it always
conditional. No biscuit for you. :)
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists