Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751891AbWI1O0d (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:26:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751067AbWI1O0d (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:26:33 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:57512 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750720AbWI1O0d (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:26:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:26:16 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Dipankar Sarma , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [-mm PATCH 1/4] RCU: split classic rcu Message-ID: <20060928142616.GA20185@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , "Paul E. McKenney" , Dipankar Sarma , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar References: <20060923152957.GA13432@in.ibm.com> <20060923153141.GB13432@in.ibm.com> <20060925165433.GA28898@infradead.org> <20060927163239.GC1291@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060927163239.GC1291@us.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1563 Lines: 26 On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 09:32:40AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > We will be switching to a new implementation. I am working to make it > as reliable as I know how, but it seems reasonable to have a changeover > period that might be measured in years. I -really- don't want to be > inflicting even the possibility of RCU implementation bugs on anyone who > has not "signed up" for code that has not yet be hammered into total > and complete submission! CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is quite reliable even now, > but there is "quite reliable" and then there is "hammered into total > and complete submission". ;-) > > Also, we need any new implementation of RCU to be in a separate file. > I don't want to even think about the number of times that I accidentally > changed the wrong version of RCU when working on the -rt implementation > before we split it -- the functions have the same name, right? :-/ Still there's absolutely no point in putting all this into mainline. Do it in your toy tree (whether it's called -rt or -pk :)) and keep one stable implementation in mainline. That one implementation should be srcu capable rather sooner than later (as soon as you're satisfied with it) because there's lots of interesting use cases for sleeping in RCU read sections. But until then keep the mainline code simple. - 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/