From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751044Ab1KCEAc (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 00:00:32 -0400 Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:34906 "EHLO relay3-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750764Ab1KCEAb (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 00:00:31 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 217.70.178.147 X-Originating-IP: 50.43.15.19 Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 21:00:03 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: "Paul E. McKenney" 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, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, darren@dvhart.com, patches@linaro.org, Frederic Weisbecker , Mike Frysinger , Guan Xuetao , David Miller , Chris Metcalf , Hans-Christian Egtvedt , Ralf Baechle , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , "H. Peter Anvin" , Russell King , Paul Mackerras , Heiko Carstens , Paul Mundt Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 19/28] nohz: Allow rcu extended quiescent state handling seperately from tick stop Message-ID: <20111103040003.GE2042@leaf> References: <20111102203017.GA3830@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1320265849-5744-19-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1320265849-5744-19-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 01:30:40PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > From: Frederic Weisbecker > > It is assumed that rcu won't be used once we switch to tickless > mode and until we restart the tick. However this is not always > true, as in x86-64 where we dereference the idle notifiers after > the tick is stopped. > > To prepare for fixing this, add two new APIs: > tick_nohz_idle_enter_norcu() and tick_nohz_idle_exit_norcu(). > > If no use of RCU is made in the idle loop between > tick_nohz_enter_idle() and tick_nohz_exit_idle() calls, the arch > must instead call the new *_norcu() version such that the arch doesn't > need to call rcu_idle_enter() and rcu_idle_exit(). The _norcu names confused me a bit. At first, I thought they meant "idle but not RCU idle, so you can use RCU", but from re-reading the commit message, apparently they mean "idle and RCU idle, so don't use RCU". What about something like _forbid_rcu instead? Or, alternatively, why not just go ahead and separate the two types of idle entirely rather than introducing the _norcu variants first? - Josh Triplett