On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 07:16:30PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-11-08 10:05:17 [-0800], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Just to make sure I understand, this is the call to queue_delayed_work_on()
> > from srcu_queue_delayed_work_on(), right?
>
> correct.
>
> > And if I am guessin
On 2018-11-08 10:05:17 [-0800], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Just to make sure I understand, this is the call to queue_delayed_work_on()
> from srcu_queue_delayed_work_on(), right?
correct.
> And if I am guessing correctly, you would like to get rid of the
> constraint requiring CPUHP_RCUTREE_PREP t
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 06:46:55PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-11-08 09:10:24 [-0800], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Is this again a hidden RCU detail that preempt_disable() on CPU4 is
> > > enough to ensure that CPU2 does not get marked offline between?
> >
> > The call_rcu_
On 2018-11-08 09:10:24 [-0800], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Is this again a hidden RCU detail that preempt_disable() on CPU4 is
> > enough to ensure that CPU2 does not get marked offline between?
>
> The call_rcu_sched parameter to synchronize_rcu_mult() makes this work.
> This synchronize_rcu_mul
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 05:38:51PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-11-01 16:12:28 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > The current check via srcu_online is slightly racy because after looking
> > > at srcu_online there could be an interrupt that interrupted us long
> > > enough
On 2018-11-01 16:12:28 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The current check via srcu_online is slightly racy because after looking
> > at srcu_online there could be an interrupt that interrupted us long
> > enough until the CPU we checked against went offline.
>
> I don't see how this can happen
6 matches
Mail list logo
