Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] RCU: implement rcu_read_[un]lock_preempt() | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Sat, 02 Aug 2008 01:06:13 +0200 |
| |
On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 14:10 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 08:07:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 14:57 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > With the introduction of preemptible RCU, RCU doesn't gurantee that > > > its critical section runs on the CPU it started to run. As there are > > > cases where non-preemptible RCU critical section makes sense, create > > > new RCU read lock variants which turns of preemption - > > > rcu_read_[un]lock_preempt() which are identical to rcu_read_[un]lock() > > > for classic implementation and have enclosing preempt disable/enable > > > for preemptible RCU. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> > > > > Sorry, NAK. > > > > If you need preempt off you need it for other reasons than RCU, so > > mixing it in the interface doesn't make sense to me. > > What Peter said. > > For example, you could simply use preempt_disable() and preempt_enable() > to guard the read side (or wrapper these as Mathieu suggests in > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/15/605, though Mathieu has not yet > convinced me that these wrappers are a good idea), and then use either > call_rcu_sched() or synchronize_sched() for the update side. > > To summarize: > > o Replace your rcu_read_lock_preempt() with preempt_disable(). > > o Replace your rcu_read_unlock_preempt() with preempt_enable(). > > o Replace your use of call_rcu() with call_rcu_sched(). > > o Replace your use of synchronize_rcu() with synchronize_sched(). > > And then you don't need these new primitives. > > However!!! This must be done carefully, as long sections of code > with preemption disabled are really bad for realtime response.
Right - what I said in the other mail, we should really not use the sched-RCU variant if we can avoid it.
| |