[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130503170447.GB30733@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 19:04:47 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper
> The key point is that I don't understand why we cannot get the effect
> we are looking for with the following in sched.h (or wherever):
>
> static inline int cond_resched_rcu(void)
> {
> #if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP) || !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU)
> rcu_read_unlock();
> cond_resched();
> rcu_read_lock();
> #endif
> }
>
> This adds absolutely no overhead in non-debug builds of CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU,
> does the checking in debug builds, and allows voluntary preemption in
> !CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU builds. CONFIG_PROVE_RCU builds will check for an
> (illegal) outer rcu_read_lock() in CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU builds, and you
> will get "scheduling while atomic" in response to an outer rcu_read_lock()
> in !CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU builds.
>
> It also seems to me a lot simpler.
>
> Does this work, or am I still missing something?
It can do quite a number of superfluous rcu_read_unlock()/lock() pairs for
voluntary preemption kernels?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists