[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/5] rcu: don't check ->donelist in __rcu_pending()
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 10:19:24PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > ->donelist becomes != NULL only in rcu_process_callbacks().
> >
> > rcu_process_callbacks() always calls rcu_do_batch() when
> > ->donelist != NULL.
> >
> > rcu_do_batch() schedules rcu_process_callbacks() again if
> > ->donelist was not flushed entirely.
> >
> > So ->donelist != NULL means that rcu_tasklet is either
> > check it in __rcu_pending().
> As Vatsa noted, this is needed if the CPU-hotplug case moves
> from ->donelist to ->donelist. It could be omitted if CPU-hotplug
> instead moves from ->donelist to ->nextlist, as is the case in Oleg's
> patch. The extra grace-period delay should not be a problem for the
> presumably rare hotplug case, but:

Just to be sure. So do you agree that CPU-hotplug is buggy now (without
that patch) ?

> o the extra test in __rcu_pending() should be quite inexpensive,
> since the cacheline is already loaded given the earlier tests.

Yes, it was a cleanup, not an optimization.

> o although tasklet_schedule() looks to be perfectly reliable
> right now, and although any bugs in tasklet_schedule() must
> be fixed, having RCU leakage be the major symptom of
> tasklet_schedule() failure sounds quite unfriendly to me.
> So I am not (yet) convinced that this patch is the way to go.

Ok, I agree.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-01-09 20:17    [W:0.095 / U:2.784 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site