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
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
--
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
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