Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:55:44 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] rcu: eliminate deadlock for rcu read site
Message-ID: <20130812135544.GG27162@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1375871104-10688-1-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <1375871104-10688-6-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <20130808204020.GA31127@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <5204B6EF.6000905@cn.fujitsu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5204B6EF.6000905@cn.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1035
Lines: 20

On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 05:31:27PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 08/09/2013 04:40 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > One problem here -- it may take quite some time for a set_need_resched()
> > to take effect.  This is especially a problem for RCU priority boosting,
> > but can also needlessly delay preemptible-RCU grace periods because
> > local_irq_restore() and friends don't check the TIF_NEED_RESCHED bit.
> 
> 
> The final effect of deboosting(rt_mutex_unlock()) is also accomplished
> via set_need_resched()/set_tsk_need_resched().
> set_need_resched() is enough for RCU priority boosting issue here.

But there's a huge difference between the boosting and deboosting side
of things. rcu_read_unlock_special() starts the boost, the deboosting
only matters if/when you reschedule. 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/