Re: [PATCH 0/6] Optimize the cpu hotplug locking -v2

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:05:08AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 07:06:56PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > it even disables irqs, so this should always imply rcu_read_lock() with
> > any implementation, 
> 
> Not so; I could make an RCU implementation that drives the state machine
> from rcu_read_unlock(). Such an implementation doesn't need the
> interrupt driven poll-state driver we currently have and could thus
> subvert that assumption :-)
> 
> Then again, there's a good reason PaulMck didn't pick this
> implementation.

True enough, but there really are some out-of-tree RCU implementations
that do take this approach and where disabling interrupts would not
block preemptible RCU.  So please do not rely on this implementation
detail.  You never know...

> > In fact I do not even understand why getaffinity() doesn't simply
> > return ->cpus_allowed, but this is off-topic.
> 
> Yeah, me neither :-(, it always surprises me. But changing it is likely
> to break stuff so there we are.

I know that feeling...

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/