[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Question about usage of RCU in the input layer
Dmitry Torokhov a écrit :
> On Thursday 19 March 2009 20:20:32 Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>> I don't claim to understand the code in question, so it is entirely
>>> possible that the following is irrelevant. But one other reason for
>>> synchronize_rcu() is:
>>> 1. Make change.
>>> 2. synchronize_rcu()
>>> 3. Now you are guaranteed that all CPUs/tasks/whatever
>>> currently running either are not messing with you on the one hand, or
>>> have seen the change on the other.
>> ok so this is for the case where someone is already iterating the list.
>> I don't see anything in the code that assumes this..
> This is something that input core guarantees to its users: by the time
> input core calls hander->start() or, in its absence, by the time
> input_register_handle() returns, events from input drivers will be
> passed into the handle being registered, i.e. the presence of the
> new item in the list is noticed by all CPUs.
> Now, it is possible to stop using RCU primitives in the input core
> but I think that you'd want to figure out why synchronize_rcu()
> takes so long first, otheriwse you may find another "abuser"
> down the road.

If a cpu does a loop, it nearly impossible that synchronize_rcu() can
be fast.

We had same problem in ksoftirqd(), where I had to add a call
to rcu_qsctr_inc() to unblock other threads blocked in synchronize_rcu();a=commit;h=64ca5ab913f1594ef316556e65f5eae63ff50cee

If a driver does a loop with no call to scheduler, it might have same problem

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: 2009-03-21 10:17    [W:0.097 / U:10.576 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site