On 7/6/07, Bhanu Kalyan Chetlapalli <chbhanukalyan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 7/6/07, pradeep singh <2500.pradeep@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, > > Quick question > > the critical section between rcu_read_lock and rcu_read_unlock need to > be as small as possible like in case of local_irq_save()/restore or am > i at liberty to have a large critical section with rcu lock? RCU read locks do not do any explicit locking, and do not block readers OR writers. However, the associated memory cleanup is done only *after* all CPUs have quiesced (went out of atomic context) at least once. So you *might* be delaying that, but I dont see any harm in doing somewhat more work while holding RCU read locks. They do disable preemption - so latencies might suffer.
Great!! Thanks for the info. --psr
> > e.g > > rcu_read_lock() > ... > /* some code here */ > ... > rcu_read_unlock() > > Is it ok to hold a rcu_read_lock across a large block of code? > > My guess it is ok? > I need someone to correct me or point me where i am misunderstanding something. > > Thanks > --psr > -- > play the game > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with > "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ > > -- The box said "Requires Windows Vista or better." So I installed LINUX
-- play the game -- To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
