On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 13:51 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 04:38:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 11:56 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_DELAY > > > + udelay(10); /* Make preemption more probable. */ > > cond_resched(); /* for extra fun? */ > > The additional fun could include "scheduling while atomic", so I will > pass. ;-) > > (The problem is that __rcu_read_unlock() can be called with interrupts > disabled, among other things.)
Hmm, too bad. Without a preemption point here you're relying on forced preemption, which of course can only happen on PREEMPT=y kernels. > > > +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_DELAY */ > > > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
