On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:07:05 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 09:51:32AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > I still need to look at the patches, but if this is just for the idle > > case, then we don't need it. The idle case can be solved with a simple > > sched_on_each_cpu(). I need a way to solve waiting for processes to > > finish from a preemption point. > > > > That's all I want, and if we can remove the "idle" case and document it > > well that it's not covered and a sched_on_each_cpu() may be needed, > > then I'm fine with that. > > > > sched_on_each_cpu(dummy_op); > > call_rcu_tasks(free_tramp); > > Sure, but why not dtrt and push rcu_idle hooks all the way down into the > idle drivers if and where appropriate? > > There isn't _that_ much idle driver code. Also, some stuff should be > cleaned up; we're already calling stop_critical_timings() in the generic > idle code, and then calling it again in the cpuidle drivers. > > True, perhaps the rcu code should hook into the stop_critical_timings code? -- Steve -- 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/
