From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH] rcu: don't call rcu_preempt_note_context_switch() in rcu_check_callbacks()
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:47:59 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BB014DF.9030905@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
Even though in user mode or idle mode, rcu_check_callbacks() is not
context switch, so we don't call rcu_preempt_note_context_switch()
in rcu_check_callbacks().
Though there is no harm that calls rcu_preempt_note_context_switch()
in rcu_check_callbacks(), but it is waste.
rcu_check_callbacks()
rcu_sched_qs()
rcu_preempt_note_context_switch()
Now, ->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0, so we just calls
rcu_preempt_qs(), but, rcu_preempt_check_callbacks()
will call it again and set the ->rcu_read_unlock_special
correct again.
So let rcu_preempt_check_callbacks() handle things for us.
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
index 3ec8160..c7847ba 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ static int rcu_gp_in_progress(struct rcu_state *rsp)
* how many quiescent states passed, just if there was at least
* one since the start of the grace period, this just sets a flag.
*/
-void rcu_sched_qs(int cpu)
+static void __rcu_sched_qs(int cpu)
{
struct rcu_data *rdp;
@@ -103,6 +103,11 @@ void rcu_sched_qs(int cpu)
rdp->passed_quiesc_completed = rdp->gpnum - 1;
barrier();
rdp->passed_quiesc = 1;
+}
+
+void rcu_sched_qs(int cpu)
+{
+ __rcu_sched_qs(cpu);
rcu_preempt_note_context_switch(cpu);
}
@@ -1138,12 +1143,12 @@ void rcu_check_callbacks(int cpu, int user)
* a quiescent state, so note it.
*
* No memory barrier is required here because both
- * rcu_sched_qs() and rcu_bh_qs() reference only CPU-local
+ * __rcu_sched_qs() and rcu_bh_qs() reference only CPU-local
* variables that other CPUs neither access nor modify,
* at least not while the corresponding CPU is online.
*/
- rcu_sched_qs(cpu);
+ __rcu_sched_qs(cpu);
rcu_bh_qs(cpu);
} else if (!in_softirq()) {
next reply other threads:[~2010-03-29 2:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-29 2:47 Lai Jiangshan [this message]
2010-03-29 4:42 ` [PATCH] rcu: don't call rcu_preempt_note_context_switch() in rcu_check_callbacks() Paul E. McKenney
2010-03-30 9:43 ` Lai Jiangshan
2010-03-30 16:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-03-31 15:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-01 0:56 ` Lai Jiangshan
2010-04-01 1:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-01 7:24 ` Lai Jiangshan
2010-04-02 0:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-02 12:27 ` Lai Jiangshan
2010-04-02 15:25 ` 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=4BB014DF.9030905@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/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