Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper

To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx>
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: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 17:59:58 +0200
On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 08:29:55AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 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

Good question.. at at least, only the __might_sleep() construct. Ingo, happen
to remember why this is? Most of this infrastructure is from before my time.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>