On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 05:52 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 15:28 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > @@ -2491,6 +2491,31 @@ static inline int rcu_blocking_is_gp(voi
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL
> > +DEFINE_LOCAL_IRQ_LOCK(rcu_sched_lock);
> > +/*
> > + * Real-time allows for synchronize sched to sleep but not migrate.
> > + * This is done via the local locks. When calling synchronize_sched(),
> > + * all the local locks need to be taken and released. This will ensure
> > + * that all users of rcu_read_lock_sched() will be out of their critical
> > + * sections at the completion of this function. synchronize_sched() will
> > + * still perform the normal RCU sched operations to synchronize with
> > + * locations that use disabling preemption or interrupts.
> > + */
> > +static void rcu_synchronize_sched_rt(void)
> > +{
> > + int cpu;
> > +
> > + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > + spin_lock(&per_cpu(rcu_sched_lock, cpu).lock);
> > + spin_unlock(&per_cpu(rcu_sched_lock, cpu).lock);
> > + }
> > +}
>
> Does that have to be possible vs online?
No, I was doing the "paranoid" approach, as I didn't know how much
hotplug may be using synchronize_sched() and wanted to make sure I hit
all CPUs. But I think online would be sufficient.
-- Steve
--
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
