lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-10-26 23:21    [W:0.111 / U:1.400 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site