lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] rcu: Is it safe to enter an RCU read-side critical section?
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 12:52:38PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2013 18:40:18 +0200
> Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I can't use plain preempt_disable() in function tracing.
> > >
> > > Also, since it's a misnomer to say the cpu is idle in NO_HZ_FULL when
> > > we are coming from userspace, can we rename that?
> > >
> > > Perhaps we can also have a __rcu_is_cpu_tracking() (or whatever), with
> > > the "__" appended that does not do the preempt disable.
> >
> > rcu_is_cpu_eqs() is probably better. It refers to other related "eqs" naming
> > in RCU APIs.
>
> But that will just confuse the heck out of people. When I see "eqs" I
> equate that with "equals". What does the rcu cpu equal?

It's "extended quiescent state". There is already rcu_eqs_enter() and rcu_eqs_exit().
You're right, may be we can rename that to avoid confusion with "equals". I don't mind much.
I'm happy as long as the reader rcu_is_cpu_foo() and the writers rcu_foo_enter() and
rcu_foo_exit() have consistant naming.

>
> -- Steve


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-06 19:21    [W:0.120 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site