On 7/6/07, Bhanu Kalyan Chetlapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/6/07, pradeep singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Quick question
>
> the critical section between rcu_read_lock and rcu_read_unlock need to
> be as small as possible like in case of local_irq_save()/restore or am
> i at liberty to have a large critical section with rcu lock?
RCU read locks do not do any explicit locking, and do not block
readers OR writers. However, the associated memory cleanup is done
only *after* all CPUs have quiesced (went out of atomic context) at
least once. So you *might* be delaying that, but I dont see any harm
in doing somewhat more work while holding RCU read locks. They do
disable preemption - so latencies might suffer.
Great!! Thanks for the info.
--psr
>
> e.g
>
> rcu_read_lock()
> ...
> /* some code here */
> ...
> rcu_read_unlock()
>
> Is it ok to hold a rcu_read_lock across a large block of code?
>
> My guess it is ok?
> I need someone to correct me or point me where i am misunderstanding
something.
>
> Thanks
> --psr
> --
> play the game
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with
> "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
>
>
--
The box said "Requires Windows Vista or better." So I installed LINUX
--
play the game
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with
"unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
