On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 08:30:22PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/08, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 03:39:30PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > > @@ -297,6 +294,7 @@ static void rcu_start_batch(struct rcu_c
> > > > > smp_mb();
> > > > > cpus_andnot(rcp->cpumask, cpu_online_map, nohz_cpu_mask);
> > > > >
> > > > > + rcp->signaled = 0;
> > > >
> > > > Would it make sense to invoke force_quiescent_state() here in the
> > > > case that rdp->qlen is still large? The disadvantage is that qlen
> > > > still counts the number of callbacks that are already slated for
> > > > invocation.
> > >
> > > This is not easy to do. rcu_start_batch() is "global", we need
> > > to scan all per-cpu 'struct rcu_data' and check it's ->qlen.
> >
> > My thought was that it might make sense to check only this CPU's struct
> > rcu_data. But I agree that the next approach seems more promising.
>
> Yes, I understood this. And I don't say this is "bad", I just think this is
> "not perfect". Because the CPU which actually starts a new grace period and
> clears ->signaled may have ->qlen == 0, and the caller is cpu_quiet(), which
> is a "response" to some other CPU's force_quiescent_state().
Sounds good!
Thanx, Paul
-
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]
