On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:48:34AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> This is helpful,??? just two comments,
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
>
> > This patch is a prerequisite for making RCU report the name of a thread
> > that is blocking RCU synchronization,
> > *because the easiest way to do that gets the name of the thread in
> > ovsrcu_quiesce_end(), *which is called before
> > the thread function is called (so it won't get a name set within the thread
> > function itself).
> >
>
> Just curious, should we change the sentence in bold to "to do that is to
> get ..."
This paragraph was not well written. I think that this might be a
little clearer:
This patch is a prerequisite for making RCU report the name of a thread
that is blocking RCU synchronization, because the easiest way to do that is
for ovsrcu_quiesce_end() to record the current thread's name.
ovsrcu_quiesce_end() is called before the thread function is called, so it
won't get a name set within the thread function itself. Setting the thread
name earlier, as in this patch, avoids the problem.
> do we still need the ovsrcu_quiesce_end() here?
Yes, this patch doesn't change any properties of RCU yet.
> --- a/lib/ovs-thread.c
> +++ b/lib/ovs-thread.c
> @@ -293,7 +293,6 @@ ovs_thread_create(const char *name, void *(*start)(void
> *), void *arg)
>
> forbid_forking("multiple threads exist");
> multithreaded = true;
> - ovsrcu_quiesce_end();
>
> aux = xmalloc(sizeof *aux);
> aux->start = start;
>
> Acked-by: Alex Wang <al...@nicira.com>
Thanks for the review!
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
