lvs-devel
|
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 http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html |
Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper, Paul E. McKenney |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper, Eric Dumazet |
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, Eric Dumazet |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |