* rcu_read_unlock() in the nestable rcu based on free-running counter
@ 2015-02-10 1:42 Namhyung Kim
2015-02-10 23:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Namhyung Kim @ 2015-02-10 1:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: perfbook
Hi,
It says "Interestingly enough, the implementation of rcu_read_unlock()
is identical to that shown in Section 'RCU based on free-running
counter'". However it seems not.. ;-)
Thanks,
Namhyung
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: rcu_read_unlock() in the nestable rcu based on free-running counter
2015-02-10 1:42 rcu_read_unlock() in the nestable rcu based on free-running counter Namhyung Kim
@ 2015-02-10 23:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-02-12 23:16 ` Namhyung Kim
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2015-02-10 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Namhyung Kim; +Cc: perfbook
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:42:40AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It says "Interestingly enough, the implementation of rcu_read_unlock()
> is identical to that shown in Section 'RCU based on free-running
> counter'". However it seems not.. ;-)
Indeed! How about the following? (And good catch, by the way!)
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interestingly enough, despite their rcu_read_lock() differences, the
implementation of rcu_read_unlock() is broadly similar to that shown in
Section 9.3.5.7.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: rcu_read_unlock() in the nestable rcu based on free-running counter
2015-02-10 23:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
@ 2015-02-12 23:16 ` Namhyung Kim
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Namhyung Kim @ 2015-02-12 23:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul McKenney; +Cc: perfbook
Hi Paul,
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:42:40AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> It says "Interestingly enough, the implementation of rcu_read_unlock()
>> is identical to that shown in Section 'RCU based on free-running
>> counter'". However it seems not.. ;-)
>
> Indeed! How about the following? (And good catch, by the way!)
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Interestingly enough, despite their rcu_read_lock() differences, the
> implementation of rcu_read_unlock() is broadly similar to that shown in
> Section 9.3.5.7.
Looks good to me!
Thanks,
Namhyung
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-02-12 23:16 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-02-10 1:42 rcu_read_unlock() in the nestable rcu based on free-running counter Namhyung Kim
2015-02-10 23:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-02-12 23:16 ` Namhyung Kim
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.