On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 01:24:47AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:02:45 -0400 (EDT) Steven Rostedt > <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This would of course require that synchronize_all_irqs() be in the > > > RCU code rather than the irq code so that it could access the static > > > wakeme_after_rcu() definition and the rcu_synchronize structure. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > I do like this better. Anyone else care to comment? > > I'm still wondering why the IRQ users cannot user proper RCU as it > stands: Well, that was my initial proposal. ;-) > rcu_read_lock(); > foo = rcu_dereference(bar); > if (foo) > foo(); > rcu_read_unlock(); > > vs > > rcu_assign(foo, NULL); > synchronize_rcu(); For this last, it would be necessary to use SRCU -- also, not sure we would want the IRQ handler to block this way. Or am I missing something? > and the like. > > The implicit rcu_read_lock() as placed in handle_IRQ_event() seems > misplaced. OK -- where would you put them instead? I have them covering the call to the handler, so what am I missing here? Thanx, Paul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
