Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:08:29 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: Thoughts on this RCU idle entry/exit patch? |
| |
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 04:56:19PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 02:12:18PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 10:34:28PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > So I wonder, do we want to continue to allow this nesting? I remember that DYNTICK_TASK_NEST_* > > > stuff is there to protects against non finishing interrupts on some archs (I also remember that > > > this, or at least a practical scenario for this, was hard to really define though :o) > > > But then wouldn't it involve other kind of scenario like this? > > > > > > rcu_irq_enter() > > > rcu_eqs_enter() > > > rcu_eqs_exit() > > > ... > > > > > > Anyway, that's just random thougths on further simplifications, in any case, this > > > patch looks good. > > > > Yep, if no task-level nesting is ever required, things could be a bit > > simpler. I would be a bit slow about making such a change, though. > > After all, the need to deal with Hotel California interrupts means that > > handling nesting isn't that big of a deal comparatively. ;-) > > Right, well ideally it would be even best to fix the corner case(s) if there aren't > that many of them. I mean calling rcu_irq_exit() from the end of those half interrupts > I guess. It would make it much simpler than this complicated nesting handled on the core code. > But I agree there is a bit of unknown out there, so yeah lets be prudent :) > > > May I add your Reviewed-by? > > Sure, thanks!
Done!
Thanx, Paul
| |