Re: [COUNTERPATCH] mm: avoid overflowing preempt_count() inmmu_take_all_locks()

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 09:15 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > I don't understand.  I thought the problem was that the locks were
> > taken inside an rcu critical section; switching to srcu would fix
> > that.  But how is call_rcu_preempt() related?  Grepping a bit, what
> > is call_rcu_preempt()?  my tree doesn't have it.
> 
> I believe that Peter is referring to the RCU implementation you get
> with CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU, which currently depends on CONFIG_PREEMPT.
> The other implementation is CONFIG_TREE_RCU, which is usually called
> "classic RCU". 

Right, so I've been nudging Paul a while to make it so that we always
have preemptible rcu available and that only the default interface
switches between sched/classic and preempt.

Currently we already have:

call_rcu_sched()
call_rcu_bh()
call_rcu()	(depends on CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU)

I'm saying it would be nice to also have:

call_rcu_preempt()



--
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/