On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:52:38AM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Simon Horman wrote:
>
> > > > +static void inline cond_resched_rcu_lock(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (need_resched()) {
> > >
> > > Ops, it should be without above need_resched.
> >
> > Thanks, to clarify, just this:
> >
> > static void inline cond_resched_rcu_lock(void)
> > {
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > #ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> > cond_resched();
> > #endif
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > }
>
> Yes, thanks!
OK, now I'm confused.. PREEMPT_RCU would preempt in any case, so why bother
dropping rcu_read_lock() at all?
That is; the thing that makes sense to me is:
static void inline cond_resched_rcu_lock(void)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
if (need_resched()) {
rcu_read_unlock();
cond_resched();
rcu_read_lock();
}
#endif /* CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU */
}
That would have an rcu_read_lock() break and voluntary preemption point for
non-preemptible RCU and not bother with the stuff for preemptible RCU.
--
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
