Re: [RFC] RCU and CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT progress

On Tue, 10 May 2005 22:08:11 +0200, Peter Zijlstra said:

> How about having another boolean indicating the ability to flip the
> selector boolean. This boolean would be set false on an actual flip and
> cleared during a grace period. That way the flips cannot ever interfere
> with one another such that the callbacks would be cleared prematurely.

As all the dining philosophers grab a fork and a spoon and dig in. ;)

Attachment: pgpk174HuRF27.pgp
Description: PGP signature

---

• References:
  • [RFC] RCU and CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT progress
    • From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC] RCU and CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT progress
    • From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFC/PATCH] unregister_node() for hotplug use
• Next by Date: High res timer?
• Previous by thread: Re: [RFC] RCU and CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT progress
• Next by thread: Re: [RFC] RCU and CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT progress
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]