![]() |
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: | Fri, 3 May 2013 20:09:26 +0200 |
> This happens in only two cases:
>
> 1. CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=n kernels. But in this case, rcu_read_unlock()
> and rcu_read_lock() are free, at least for CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=n
> kernels. And if you have CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y, any contribution
> from rcu_read_unlock() and rcu_read_lock() will be in the noise.
Oh argh.. I completely overlooked that rcu_read_{,un}lock() are NOPs for
PREEMPT=n kernels.
/me crawls back under his stone..
--
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, Julian Anastasov |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper, Julian Anastasov |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper, Paul E. McKenney |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: Add cond_resched_rcu_lock() helper, Julian Anastasov |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |