Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752753AbYJVSj3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:39:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751684AbYJVSjU (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:39:20 -0400 Received: from gv-out-0910.google.com ([216.239.58.190]:29422 "EHLO gv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751131AbYJVSjT (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:39:19 -0400 Message-ID: <48FF73C7.90709@colorfullife.com> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:41:11 +0200 From: Manfred Spraul User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cl@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dipankar@in.ibm.com, josht@linux.vnet.ibm.com, schamp@sgi.com, niv@us.ibm.com, dvhltc@us.ibm.com, ego@in.ibm.com, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, peterz@infradead.org, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, andi@firstfloor.org, tglx@linutronix.de Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] v7 scalable classic RCU implementation References: <20080830004935.GA28548@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080905152930.GA8124@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080915160221.GA9660@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080923235340.GA12166@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20081010160930.GA9777@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <48F21D58.3000404@colorfullife.com> <20081012224629.GA7353@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <48F38D73.8040804@colorfullife.com> <20081015011143.GE6874@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <48F5A638.8020003@colorfullife.com> <20081015152637.GA6739@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20081015152637.GA6739@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 902 Lines: 25 Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Only once per such CPU every grace period -- seems in the noise to me. > But I should revisit, as I have changed things quite a bit since I > made that decision many weeks ago. ;-) > > Another small point: Does your implementation support rcu_check_callbacks() with cpu != smp_processor_id()? I don't think my locking would support it properly. Thus: - cpu != smp_processor_id() doesn't work. - stack space for a useless parameter. - the explicit cpu parameter prevents the rcu code from using get_cpu_var(). What about modifying the rcu_check_callbacks() prototype? I'd propose to remove the cpu parameter. -- Manfred -- 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/