2012/11/13 Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > 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? > > No, it would mean that on UP you could choose between TINY_RCU and > TREE_PREEMPT_RCU, depending on whether you want tiny or preemptible. Ok. I thought the TREE version wasn't possible anymore on UP when I saw some patches that removed optimizations for nr_online_cpus=1. Hence the confusion. -- 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
