Re: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency

On Friday 06 January 2006 11:17, Eric Dumazet wrote:

>
> I assume that if a CPU queued 10.000 items in its RCU queue, then the
> oldest entry cannot still be in use by another CPU. This might sounds as a
> violation of RCU rules, (I'm not an RCU expert) but seems quite reasonable.

I don't think it's a good assumption. Another CPU might be stuck in a long 
running interrupt, and still have a reference in the code running below
the interrupt handler.

And in general letting correctness depend on magic numbers like this is 
very nasty.

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency
    • From: Lee Revell <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency
    • From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH 4/6] sysctl: dont overflow the user-supplied buffer with 0
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency
    • From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: High load
• Next by Date: Re: .gitignore files really necessary?
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency (Version 2), HOTPLUG_CPU fix
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency
• 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]