From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu,
laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca,
josh@joshtriplett.org, dvhltc@us.ibm.com, niv@us.ibm.com,
tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] v2 accelerate grace period if last non-dynticked CPU
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 01:53:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100204005327.GJ5068@nowhere> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100201042404.GD6721@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 08:24:04PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> There is nothing illegal about the following:
>
> static void my_rcu_callback(struct rcu_head *rcu)
> {
> struct foo *fp = container_of(rcu, struct foo, rcu_head);
>
> if (fp->refcnt != 0) {
> call_rcu(rcu);
> return;
> }
> kfree(fp);
> }
>
> And allowing RCU_NEEDS_CPU_FLUSHES of infinity would work correctly in
> some sense, but would be a massive power inefficiency.
>
> The choice of "5" allows a callback that posts one other callback,
> which happens often enough to be worth the extra iterations. It is
> necessary to budget two passes through the loop per level of RCU
> callback, one for the current CPU to start the grace period and another
> for it to end it.
>
> Seem reasonable?
Yeah ok, I did not considered situations like the above example.
Thanks.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-04 0:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-28 15:32 [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] v2 accelerate grace period if last non-dynticked CPU Paul E. McKenney
2010-01-31 19:23 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-02-01 4:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-02-04 0:53 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
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=20100204005327.GJ5068@nowhere \
--to=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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