Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 22/41] rcu: Simplify unboosting checks
From: Josh Triplett
Date: Thu Feb 02 2012 - 23:23:40 EST
On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 09:48:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 06:38:47PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 11:41:40AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > This is a port of commit #82e78d80 from TREE_PREEMPT_RCU to
> > > TINY_PREEMPT_RCU.
> > >
> > > This commit uses the fact that current->rcu_boost_mutex is set
> > > any time that the RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BOOSTED flag is set in the
> > > current->rcu_read_unlock_special bitmask. This allows tests of
> > > the bit to be changed to tests of the pointer, which in turn allows
> > > the RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BOOSTED flag to be eliminated.
> > Does this change affect rcu_read_unlock()'s logic to trigger the
> > slowpath only when special flags get set?
> Interestingly enough, it does not. The only way a task can be subjected
> to RCU priority boosting is for that task to block sometime in its
> current RCU read-side critical section. When the task blocks, the
> RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED flag will be set. Therefore, any time that the
> current->rcu_boost_mutex pointer is non-NULL, the RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED
> flag will be set, so the current test of current->rcu_read_unlock_special
> against zero continues to work correctly.
Makes sense; no sense boosting an RCU reader that already has a CPU to
> OK, OK, I will update the commit message with words to this effect. ;-)
- Josh Triplett
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/