On 2018-05-15 13:11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 09:33:46AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
Hello Paul,

You removed the reporing while simplifying the commit 508880df6 :)
Fold this patch onto the commit or add, whatever you want.

First, thank you for checking!

But second, the removal was intentional.  Tiny RCU only exists in
PREEMPT=n kernels, and in such kernels there can be no RCU-tasks.
This is the reason for this line in the new commit log:

I see. Thank you.

[ paulmck: Simplify rcutiny portion given no RCU-tasks for !PREEMPT. ]

                                                        Thanx, Paul

Thanks,
Byungchul

----->8-----
>From 18a2d8da3baf79d0edd5ccf94abe6f989da5b1c1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.p...@lge.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 09:21:43 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] rcu: Report a quiescent state of TASKS_RCU on a tick from
  user

The reporting was removed while simplifying the commit 508880df6 (rcu:
Improve rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch() reporting). Add it back.

Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.p...@lge.com>
---
  kernel/rcu/tiny.c | 4 +++-
  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tiny.c b/kernel/rcu/tiny.c
index befc932..3345596 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tiny.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tiny.c
@@ -120,8 +120,10 @@ void rcu_bh_qs(void)
   */
  void rcu_check_callbacks(int user)
  {
-       if (user)
+       if (user) {
                rcu_sched_qs();
+               rcu_tasks_qs();
+       }
        if (user || !in_softirq())
                rcu_bh_qs();
  }
--
1.9.1




--
Thanks,
Byungchul

Reply via email to