Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Jun 2015 19:13:02 +0200 | From | Daniel Wagner <> | Subject | Re: call_rcu from trace_preempt |
| |
On 06/16/2015 06:07 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:43:42AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 07:16:26 -0700 >> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> >>>> Just for the record: Using a thread for freeing the memory is curing the >>>> problem without the need to modify rcu_is_watching. >>> >>> I must confess to liking this approach better than guaranteeing full-up >>> reentrancy in call_rcu() and kfree_rcu(). ;-) >> >> Then reentrancy must be really bad if you prefer a spinning thread that >> polls constantly just to free an item ;-) > > I was (perhaps naively) assuming that they would use a less aggressive > approach at some point. ;-)
Yes, this was just playing around :)
| |