[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230315193851.8598-6-joel@joelfernandes.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 19:38:51 +0000
From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
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>
Cc: rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 6/6] rcu: Add comment to rcu_do_batch() identifying rcuoc code path
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
This commit adds a comment to help explain why the "else" clause of the
in_serving_softirq() "if" statement does not need to enforce a time limit.
The reason is that this "else" clause handles rcuoc kthreads that do not
block handlers for other softirq vectors.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
---
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index 8e880c09ab59..06cc6a6ad819 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -2131,6 +2131,8 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_data *rdp)
break;
}
} else {
+ // In rcuoc context, so no worries about depriving
+ // other softirq vectors of CPU cycles.
local_bh_enable();
lockdep_assert_irqs_enabled();
cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs();
--
2.40.0.rc1.284.g88254d51c5-goog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists