On 06/11, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > @@ -1202,10 +1204,14 @@ static int rcu_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp) > t = container_of(tb, struct task_struct, rcu_node_entry); > rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked(&mtx, t); > t->rcu_boost_mutex = &mtx; > + init_completion(&rnp->boost_completion);
can't rcu_init_one() do this? but this is minor, > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags); > rt_mutex_lock(&mtx); /* Side effect: boosts task t's priority. */ > rt_mutex_unlock(&mtx); /* Keep lockdep happy. */ > > + /* Wait until boostee is done accessing mtx before reinitializing. */ > + wait_for_completion(&rnp->boost_completion); > + I must have missed something, I dont understand why we need ->boost_completion. What if you simply move that rt_mutex into rcu_node ? Or. Given that rcu_boost_kthread() never exits, it can declare this mutex on stack and pass the pointer to rcu_boost() ? Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
