On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 03:28:35PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 09:51:34AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 04:44:25PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 12:45:24PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 07,
On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 09:51:34AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 04:44:25PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 12:45:24PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:48:50AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 7, 20
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 04:44:25PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 12:45:24PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:48:50AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ah, and any
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 12:45:24PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:48:50AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah, and any thoughts on how best to get feedback from the various people
> > > who would n
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 02:47:26PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 05:29:46PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 08:04:09AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 10:55:20AM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 05:48:55PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:14 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 08:33:20AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>
> >> Moving this discussion to a public list as discussing how to reduce the
> >> number of rcu va
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:14 AM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 08:33:20AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Moving this discussion to a public list as discussing how to reduce the
>> number of rcu variants does not make sense in private. We should have
>> an archive of suc
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 07:54:44AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:39:06PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 09:47:38AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > But if we look at the bigger API picture:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:48:50AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> >
> > Ah, and any thoughts on how best to get feedback from the various people
> > who would need to reprogram their fingers? Or is everyone already on
> > board with chan
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:54 AM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
>
> Ah, and any thoughts on how best to get feedback from the various people
> who would need to reprogram their fingers? Or is everyone already on
> board with changing these various names?
I really would prefer to not see massive re-namin
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:39:06PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 09:47:38AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > > > But if we look at the bigger API picture:
> > > > >
> > > > > !PREEMPT_RCU PREEMPT_RCU=y
> >
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 10:00:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> >I.e. the new RCU namespace would be something like:
> >
> > call_rcu => rcu_call_rcu
>
> typo: rcu_call().
>
> > synchronize_rcu => rcu_wait_
>
> typo: rc
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 09:47:38AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > > But if we look at the bigger API picture:
> > > >
> > > > !PREEMPT_RCU PREEMPT_RCU=y
> > > > rcu_read_lock():atomicpreemptible
> > > > rcu_read_lock
* Ingo Molnar wrote:
>I.e. the new RCU namespace would be something like:
>
> call_rcu => rcu_call_rcu
typo: rcu_call().
> synchronize_rcu => rcu_wait_
typo: rcu_wait().
Here's the updated table:
# RCU APIs:
rcu_read_lock
* Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > But if we look at the bigger API picture:
> > >
> > > !PREEMPT_RCU PREEMPT_RCU=y
> > > rcu_read_lock():atomicpreemptible
> > > rcu_read_lock_sched(): atomicatomic
> > > srcu_read_lock(): preemptible
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 08:33:20AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Moving this discussion to a public list as discussing how to reduce the
> number of rcu variants does not make sense in private. We should have
> an archive of such discussions.
>
> Ingo Molnar writes:
>
> > * Paul E. McKen
Moving this discussion to a public list as discussing how to reduce the
number of rcu variants does not make sense in private. We should have
an archive of such discussions.
Ingo Molnar writes:
> * Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
>> > So if people really want that low-cost RCU, and some people real
17 matches
Mail list logo