[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YKsk3ZdDyoy9/Ga/@google.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 13:00:29 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] rcu/tree: handle VM stoppage in stall detection
On (21/05/23 20:46), Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> In theory, yes, sort of, anyway. In practice, highly unlikely.
> The most plausible way for this to happen is for this code path to be
> delayed for a long time on a 32-bit system, so that jiffies+ULONG_MAX/2
> actually arrives. But in that case, all sorts of other complaints
> would happen first.
I see.
> But I could make this a cmpxchg(), if that is what you are getting at.
No, it's good. I was just curious what scenario I was missing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists