On Sat, 27 Apr 2013, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 02:32:48PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> > So, I assume, to help realtime kernels and rcu_barrier
> > it is not a good idea to guard rcu_read_unlock with checks.
> > I see that rcu_read_unlock will try to reschedule in the
> > !CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU case (via preempt_enable), can we
> > use ifdefs to avoid double TIF_NEED_RESCHED check?:
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > #if !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT) || defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU)
> I would instead suggest something like:
> #ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> But yes, in the CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU case, the cond_resched() is not
Hm, is this correct? If I follow the ifdefs
preempt_schedule is called when CONFIG_PREEMPT is
defined _and_ CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU is not defined.
Your example for CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU is the opposite to this?
> Thanx, Paul
> > cond_resched();
> > #endif
> > rcu_read_lock();
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html