Re: [PATCH RFC 3/9] RCU: Preemptible RCU

2007-09-27 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 07:13:51PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 09/23, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 09:38:07PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > Isn't DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED better for rcu_flip_flag and > > > rcu_mb_flag? > > > > Looks like it to me, thank yo

Re: [PATCH RFC -rt] updated synchronize_all_irqs implementation

2007-09-27 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
On 9/27/07, Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -- > On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > > > Here are the uses in 2.6.23-rc6. There are several that might not > > > be so easy to replace with RCU. > > > > > > > I will look into converting into "proper RCU" but I'd like yo

Re: [PATCH RFC -rt] updated synchronize_all_irqs implementation

2007-09-27 Thread Steven Rostedt
-- On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > Here are the uses in 2.6.23-rc6. There are several that might not > > be so easy to replace with RCU. > > > > I will look into converting into "proper RCU" but I'd like you to > consider one more thing - proper RCU disables preemption, correc

Re: [PATCH RFC -rt] updated synchronize_all_irqs implementation

2007-09-27 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
On 9/26/07, Paul E. McKenney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 05:07:33PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > -- > > On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 12:55 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > Well, we could make spin_lock_irqs