lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [COUNTERPATCH] mm: avoid overflowing preempt_count() in mmu_take_all_locks()
From
Date
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 09:15 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > I don't understand. I thought the problem was that the locks were
> > taken inside an rcu critical section; switching to srcu would fix
> > that. But how is call_rcu_preempt() related? Grepping a bit, what
> > is call_rcu_preempt()? my tree doesn't have it.
>
> I believe that Peter is referring to the RCU implementation you get
> with CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU, which currently depends on CONFIG_PREEMPT.
> The other implementation is CONFIG_TREE_RCU, which is usually called
> "classic RCU".

Right, so I've been nudging Paul a while to make it so that we always
have preemptible rcu available and that only the default interface
switches between sched/classic and preempt.

Currently we already have:

call_rcu_sched()
call_rcu_bh()
call_rcu() (depends on CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU)

I'm saying it would be nice to also have:

call_rcu_preempt()





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-04-01 18:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site