On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 01:24:47AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:02:45 -0400 (EDT) Steven Rostedt
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > This would of course require that synchronize_all_irqs() be in the
> > > RCU code rather than the irq code so that it could access the static
> > > wakeme_after_rcu() definition and the rcu_synchronize structure.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > I do like this better. Anyone else care to comment?
>
> I'm still wondering why the IRQ users cannot user proper RCU as it
> stands:
Well, that was my initial proposal. ;-)
> rcu_read_lock();
> foo = rcu_dereference(bar);
> if (foo)
> foo();
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> vs
>
> rcu_assign(foo, NULL);
> synchronize_rcu();
For this last, it would be necessary to use SRCU -- also, not sure
we would want the IRQ handler to block this way. Or am I missing
something?
> and the like.
>
> The implicit rcu_read_lock() as placed in handle_IRQ_event() seems
> misplaced.
OK -- where would you put them instead? I have them covering the
call to the handler, so what am I missing here?
Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
