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

To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper
Cc: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx>, 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 17:17:53 +0200
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.

> Of course, both approaches assume that the caller is in a place
> where having all RCU-protected data disappear is OK!

Quite :-)
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>