Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Nov 2011 06:32:31 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 19/28] nohz: Allow rcu extended quiescent state handling seperately from tick stop |
| |
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:54:33PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 09:00:03PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 01:30:40PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> > > > > > > It is assumed that rcu won't be used once we switch to tickless > > > mode and until we restart the tick. However this is not always > > > true, as in x86-64 where we dereference the idle notifiers after > > > the tick is stopped. > > > > > > To prepare for fixing this, add two new APIs: > > > tick_nohz_idle_enter_norcu() and tick_nohz_idle_exit_norcu(). > > > > > > If no use of RCU is made in the idle loop between > > > tick_nohz_enter_idle() and tick_nohz_exit_idle() calls, the arch > > > must instead call the new *_norcu() version such that the arch doesn't > > > need to call rcu_idle_enter() and rcu_idle_exit(). > > > > The _norcu names confused me a bit. At first, I thought they meant > > "idle but not RCU idle, so you can use RCU", but from re-reading the > > commit message, apparently they mean "idle and RCU idle, so don't use > > RCU". What about something like _forbid_rcu instead? Or, > > alternatively, why not just go ahead and separate the two types of idle > > entirely rather than introducing the _norcu variants first? > > Or tick_nohz_idle_enter_rcu_stop() and tick_nohz_idle_exit_rcu_restart()? > > Sounds clear but too long. May be we can shorten the tick_nohz thing in the > beginning.
How about tick_nohz_rcu_idle_enter() vs. tick_nohz_idle_enter() on entry to the idle loop and tick_nohz_rcu_idle_exit() vs tick_nohz_idle_exit() on exit?
That said, I don't feel all that strongly on this naming topic.
Thanx, Paul
| |