On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:19:47AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH 01/27] rcu: Don't disable preemption for Tiny and Tree RCU
> readers
>
> Because preempt_disable() maps to barrier() for non-debug builds,
> it forces the compiler to spill and reload registers. Because Tree
> RCU and Tiny RCU now only appear in CONFIG_PREEMPT=n builds, these
> barrier() instances generate needless extra code for each instance of
> rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock(). This extra code slows down Tree
> RCU and bloats Tiny RCU.
>
> This commit therefore removes the preempt_disable() and preempt_enable()
> from the non-preemptible implementations of __rcu_read_lock() and
> __rcu_read_unlock(), respectively.
>
> For debug purposes, preempt_disable() and preempt_enable() are still
> kept if CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=y, which makes the detection of sleeping
> inside atomic sections still work in non-preemptible kernels.
>
> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.f...@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> include/linux/rcupdate.h | 6 ++++--
> include/linux/rcutiny.h | 1 +
> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 9 +++++++++
> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> index d63bb77..6c3cece 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> @@ -297,12 +297,14 @@ void synchronize_rcu(void);
>
> static inline void __rcu_read_lock(void)
> {
> - preempt_disable();
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT))
> + preempt_disable();
preempt_disable() is a no-op when !CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT, right?
Or rather it's a barrier(), which is anyway implied by rcu_read_lock().
So perhaps we can get rid of the IS_ENABLED() check?
--
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/
