lvs-devel
|
To: | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper |
Cc: | "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@xxxxxxxxxx> |
From: | Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Wed, 01 May 2013 08:29:55 -0700 |
On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 17:17 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 05:46:37AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > If the only goal is to allow preemption, and if long grace periods are > > not a concern, then this alternate approach would work fine as well. > > Hmm.. if that were the goal I'd like it to have a different name; > cond_resched*() has always been about preemption. BTW, I do not remember why cond_resched() is not an empty macro when CONFIG_PREEMPT=y ? -- 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 |
Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper, Peter Zijlstra |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper, Peter Zijlstra |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper, Peter Zijlstra |
Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper, Peter Zijlstra |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |