lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] Strange code in cpu_idle()
Hello Zwane,

On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 02:47:11AM -0700, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> Hello Paul,
>
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > Unless idle_cpu() is busted, it seems like the above is, given the code in
> > rcu_check_callbacks():
> >
> > void rcu_check_callbacks(int cpu, int user)
> > {
> > if (user ||
> > (idle_cpu(cpu) && !in_softirq() &&
> > hardirq_count() <= (1 << HARDIRQ_SHIFT))) {
> > rcu_qsctr_inc(cpu);
> > rcu_bh_qsctr_inc(cpu);
> > } else if (!in_softirq())
> > rcu_bh_qsctr_inc(cpu);
> > tasklet_schedule(&per_cpu(rcu_tasklet, cpu));
> > }
> >
> > So I would say that the rcu_read_lock() in cpu_idle() is having no
> > effect, because any timer interrupt from cpu_idle() will mark a
> > quiescent state notwithstanding. What am I missing here?
>
> What about the hardirq_count check since we're coming in from the timer
> interrupt?

Look at the hardirq_count check closely - it only checks for reentrant
hardirqs. If the idle task gets interrupted by a timer interrupt,
the RCU quiscent state counter for the cpu will get incremented.
So, rcu_read_lock() in cpu_idle() is bogus.

Thanks
Dipankar
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:0.052 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site