Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:15:39 -0700 | From | Sergey Senozhatsky <> | Subject | Re: lots of suspicious RCU traces |
| |
On (10/24/12 13:11), Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > > sorry, I meant idle from RCU point of view: > > > > > > > > int rcu_is_cpu_idle(void) > > > > { > > > > return !rcu_dynticks_nesting; > > > > } > > > > > > Hmmm... This reproduces on UP builds, then? > > > > I'll compile UP build (will offlining of N-1 CPUs do the trick?). > > Oh -- you quoted the Tiny RCU (CONFIG_SMP=n) variant of rcu_is_cpu_idle(),
sorry, that was just an 'illustration'.
-ss
> so I just thought that you were reproducing on CONFIG_SMP=n. You would > have to actually rebuild the kernel to get the different version. > > But never mind! RCU_USER_QS depends on CONFIG_SMP=y, so my question > was irrelevant. > > Thanx, Paul >
| |