From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759726AbYJVVWv (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:22:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754237AbYJVVWj (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:22:39 -0400 Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.128.188]:31553 "EHLO fk-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752743AbYJVVWj (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:22:39 -0400 Message-ID: <48FF9A0E.90205@colorfullife.com> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:24:30 +0200 From: Manfred Spraul User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cl@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dipankar@in.ibm.com, josht@linux.vnet.ibm.com, schamp@sgi.com, niv@us.ibm.com, dvhltc@us.ibm.com, ego@in.ibm.com, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, peterz@infradead.org, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, andi@firstfloor.org, tglx@linutronix.de Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation References: <20080915160221.GA9660@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080923235340.GA12166@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20081010160930.GA9777@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <48F21D58.3000404@colorfullife.com> <20081012224629.GA7353@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <48F38D73.8040804@colorfullife.com> <20081015011143.GE6874@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <48F5A638.8020003@colorfullife.com> <20081015152637.GA6739@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <48FF73C7.90709@colorfullife.com> <20081022210254.GE6766@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20081022210254.GE6766@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Hmmm... Looks like rcu_pending is also always called with its cpu > parameter set to the current CPU, and same for rcu_needs_cpu(). > And given that all the external uses of rcu_check_callbacks() are > of the following form: > > if (rcu_pending(cpu)) > rcu_check_callbacks(cpu, whatever); > > > perhaps rcu_pending() should be an internal-to-RCU API invoked from > rcu_check_callbacks(). > > Thoughts? > From my point of view: Yes, change it. In the long run, I'd like to move the stall detector code to rcupdate.c, with an 'rcu_cpu_missing' callback. That one would need a cpu flag, but that's a new function. -- Manfred