From: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@ioremap.net>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
davem@davemloft.net, dada1@cosmosbay.com,
jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com, paulus@samba.org,
laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, jengelh@medozas.de, r000n@r000n.net,
benh@kernel.crashing.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] v5 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 00:02:23 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090517200223.GA31029@ioremap.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090517191141.GA25915@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Hi.
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 12:11:41PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> Fifth cut of "big hammer" expedited RCU grace periods. This uses per-CPU
> kthreads that are scheduled in parallel by a call to smp_call_function()
> by yet another kthread. The synchronize_sched(), synchronize_rcu(),
> and synchronize_bh() primitives wake this kthread up and then wait for
> it to force the grace period.
I'm curious, but doesn't the fact that registered 'barrier' callback is
invoked mean grace period completion? I.e. why to bother with
rescheduling, waiting for thread to complete and so on, when we only
care in the fact that 'barrier' callback is invoked, and thus all
previous ones are completed?
Or it is done just for the simplicity, since all rescheduling machinery
already manages the rcu bits correctly, so you do not want to put it
directly into 'barrier' callback?
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-17 20:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-17 19:11 [PATCH RFC] v5 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-17 20:02 ` Evgeniy Polyakov [this message]
2009-05-17 22:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-18 6:59 ` Lai Jiangshan
2009-05-18 14:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-18 7:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-18 15:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-18 15:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-18 16:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-19 8:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-19 12:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-19 12:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-19 16:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-20 8:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-20 15:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-27 22:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-29 1:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-05-29 12:06 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2009-05-30 4:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090517200223.GA31029@ioremap.net \
--to=zbr@ioremap.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=jengelh@medozas.de \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=r000n@r000n.net \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).