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    [W:0.035 / U:0.136 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site