Re: [PATCH 2/2] ipvs: Use cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper when dumping co

To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ipvs: Use cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper when dumping connections
Cc: paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 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>, dhaval.giani@xxxxxxxxx
From: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:32:48 +0300 (EEST)

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013, Eric Dumazet wrote:

> On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 10:48 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Don't get me wrong, I am not opposing cond_resched_rcu_lock() because it
> > will be difficult to validate.  For one thing, until there are a lot of
> > them, manual inspection is quite possible.  So feel free to apply my
> > Acked-by to the patch.
> One question : If some thread(s) is(are) calling rcu_barrier() and
> waiting we exit from rcu_read_lock() section, is need_resched() enough
> for allowing to break the section ?
> If not, maybe we should not test need_resched() at all.
> rcu_read_unlock();
> cond_resched();
> rcu_read_lock();

        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?:

#if !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT) || defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU)


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

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