On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 09:46:20AM -0500, Nick Bowler wrote:
> On 2012-11-12 16:49 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > I know of people using TINY_RCU, TREE_RCU, and TREE_PREEMPT_RCU, but I
> > have not heard of anyone using TINY_PREEMPT_RCU for whom TREE_PREEMPT_RCU
> > was not a viable option (in contrast, the people running Linux on
> > tiny-memmory systems typically use TINY_RCU).  Of course, if no one
> > really needs it, the proper thing to do is to remove it.
> > 
> > So, if you need TINY_PREEMPT_RCU, please let me know.  Otherwise, I will
> > remove it, probably in the 3.9 timeframe.
> 
> Yes, I use TINY_PREEMPT_RCU on my UP machines.  It is, in fact, the only
> option.

Suppose that TREE_PREEMPT_RCU was available for !SMP && PREEMPT builds.
Would that work for you?

							Thanx, Paul