lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] rcu/tree: Clarify comments about FQS loop reporting quiescent states
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:02 PM Joel Fernandes (Google)
<joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
>
> At least since v4.19, the FQS loop no longer reports quiescent states

I meant here, "FQS loop no longer reports quiescent states for offline CPUs."

Sorry,

- Joel


> unless it is a dire situation where an offlined CPU failed to report
> a quiescent state. Let us clarify the comment in rcu_gp_init() inorder
> to keep the comment current.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 1e51962b565b..929568ff5989 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -1701,8 +1701,8 @@ static bool rcu_gp_init(void)
>
> /*
> * Apply per-leaf buffered online and offline operations to the
> - * rcu_node tree. Note that this new grace period need not wait
> - * for subsequent online CPUs, and that quiescent-state forcing
> + * rcu_node tree. Note that this new grace period need not wait for
> + * subsequent online CPUs, and that RCU hooks in CPU offlining path
> * will handle subsequent offline CPUs.
> */
> rcu_state.gp_state = RCU_GP_ONOFF;
> --
> 2.28.0.rc0.142.g3c755180ce-goog
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-30 05:26    [W:2.198 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site