I think it is better to set ->next_pending in the caller, when
it is needed. This saves one parameter, and this coincides with
cpu_quiet() beahaviour, which sets ->completed = ->cur itself.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
--- 2.6.15/kernel/rcupdate.c~2_NPEND 2006-01-10 18:35:45.000000000 +0300
+++ 2.6.15/kernel/rcupdate.c 2006-01-10 18:39:08.000000000 +0300
@@ -249,12 +249,8 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_data
* active batch and the batch to be registered has not already occurred.
* Caller must hold rcu_state.lock.
*/
-static void rcu_start_batch(struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp, struct rcu_state *rsp,
- int next_pending)
+static void rcu_start_batch(struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp, struct rcu_state *rsp)
{
- if (next_pending)
- rcp->next_pending = 1;
-
if (rcp->next_pending &&
rcp->completed == rcp->cur) {
rcp->next_pending = 0;
@@ -288,7 +284,7 @@ static void cpu_quiet(int cpu, struct rc
if (cpus_empty(rsp->cpumask)) {
/* batch completed ! */
rcp->completed = rcp->cur;
- rcu_start_batch(rcp, rsp, 0);
+ rcu_start_batch(rcp, rsp);
}
}
@@ -423,7 +419,8 @@ static void __rcu_process_callbacks(stru
if (!rcp->next_pending) {
/* and start it/schedule start if it's a new batch */
spin_lock(&rsp->lock);
- rcu_start_batch(rcp, rsp, 1);
+ rcp->next_pending = 1;
+ rcu_start_batch(rcp, rsp);
spin_unlock(&rsp->lock);
}
} else {
-
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/
[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]
