lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Q: locking mechanisms
From
Date
Urs,

On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 07:58 +0200, Urs Thuermann wrote:
> So my question is, is it really necessary for the list traversal to be
> atomic, i.e. to disable preemption? According to "Linux Device
> Drivers", this is needed for the callback function, so it can be
> called after the scheduler has been run on all CPUs and no reader is
> still accessing the list item to be freed. Is it right, that the
> rcu_read_lock() wouldn't be necessary if I only would call
> list_add_rcu() and list_del_rcu() since these make atomic changes and
> can run in parallel anyway, even with rcu_read_lock(), on a SMP
> system?

Does Documentation/listRCU.txt answer your questions ?

tglx


-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-07-02 00:08    [W:0.067 / U:7.788 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site