Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC&PATCH] Alternative RCU implementation | From | Jim Houston <> | Date | 31 Aug 2004 20:10:50 -0400 |
| |
On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 13:38, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> > I'm also trying to figure out if I need the call_rcu_bh() changes. > > Since my patch will recognize a grace periods as soon as any > > pending read-side critical sections complete, I suspect that I > > don't need this change. > > Except that under a softirq flood, a reader in a different read-side > critical section may get delayed a lot holding up RCU. Let me know > if I am missing something here.
Hi Dipankar,
O.k. That makes sense. So the rcu_read_lock_bh(), rcu_read_unlock_bh() and call_rcu_bh() would be the preferred interface. Are there cases where they can't be used? How do you decide where to use the _bh flavor?
I see that local_bh_enable() WARNS if interrupts are disabled. Is that the issue? Are rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() ever called from code which disables interrupts?
Jim Houston - Concurrent Computer Corp.
- 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/
| |