On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:44:42AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 01:28:17PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 08:42:28PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 02:25:01PM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > > I've found a document that says that cond_resched() is needed on
> > > > preemptible kernels to mark RCU quiescent states:
> > > >
> > > > https://lwn.net/Articles/603252/
> > > >
> > > > Paul, is cond_resched() still needed on current RCU implementation? Or not?
> > >
> > > No, we ripped that out. See 4a81e8328d37 ("rcu: Reduce overhead of
> > > cond_resched() checks for RCU")
> >
> > I would instead say that we changed the algorithm to reduce the overhead
> > in the common case, but yes, this commit did change things quite a bit.
>
> Sure, but critical point (for this discussion) is that cond_resched() no
> longer implies anything RCU, it really only is a voluntary reschedule
> point.
Agreed, cond_resched_rcu_qs() is what you use to do both a cond_resched()
and an RCU quiescent state.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|