On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 02:12:27AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > 2012/11/13 Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > 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. > > I don't use it personally but if you remove it, does that mean that > RCU couldn't be preemptible on UP? It would mean that a kernel built with SMP=n and PREEMPT=y would use TREE_PREEMPT_RCU rather than the current TINY_PREEMPT_RCU. So it would work just as well, but use somewhat more memory. 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
