Hello, On Sat, 27 Apr 2013, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 02:32:48PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote: > > > > So, I assume, to help realtime kernels and rcu_barrier > > it is not a good idea to guard rcu_read_unlock with checks. > > I see that rcu_read_unlock will try to reschedule in the > > !CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU case (via preempt_enable), can we > > use ifdefs to avoid double TIF_NEED_RESCHED check?: > > > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > #if !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT) || defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU) > > I would instead suggest something like: > > #ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU > > But yes, in the CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU case, the cond_resched() is not > needed. Hm, is this correct? If I follow the ifdefs preempt_schedule is called when CONFIG_PREEMPT is defined _and_ CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU is not defined. Your example for CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU is the opposite to this? > Thanx, Paul > > > cond_resched(); > > #endif > > rcu_read_lock(); Regards -- Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
