Re: [RFC&PATCH] Alternative RCU implementation

[Jim Houston]

On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 13:38, Dipankar Sarma wrote:

> > I'm also trying to figure out if I need the call_rcu_bh() changes.
> > Since my patch will recognize a grace periods as soon as any 
> > pending read-side critical sections complete, I suspect that I
> > don't need this change.
> 
> Except that under a softirq flood, a reader in a different read-side
> critical section may get delayed a lot holding up RCU. Let me know
> if I am missing something here.

Hi Dipankar,

O.k.  That makes sense.  So the rcu_read_lock_bh(), rcu_read_unlock_bh()
and call_rcu_bh() would be the preferred interface.  Are there cases
where they can't be used?  How do you decide where to use the _bh 
flavor?

I see that local_bh_enable() WARNS if interrupts are disabled.  Is that
the issue?  Are rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() ever called from 
code which disables interrupts?

Jim Houston - Concurrent Computer Corp.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/