On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 08:11:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > That depends on how slow the resulting slow global state would be. > We have some use cases (definitely KVM, perhaps also some of the VFS > code) that need the current speed, as opposed to the profound slowness > that three trips through synchronize_sched() would provide.
But we have call_srcu() these days, not everything needs to use sync_srcu() anymore. Although I've not checked recently. > Plus we > would lose the ability to have SRCU readers on idle and offline CPUs. Are we actually doing that? offline CPUs in particular seems iffy, I don't think we need (or should) worry about that. I know its been an issue with regular RCU due to tracing, but I'm not sure we should care for it for SRCU. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
