On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 03:39:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 11:18 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > +static int rcu_gp_kthread(void *arg)
> > +{
> > + struct rcu_state *rsp = arg;
> > + struct rcu_node *rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp);
> > +
> > + for (;;) {
> > +
> > + /* Handle grace-period start. */
> > + for (;;) {
> > + wait_event_interruptible(rsp->gp_wq, rsp->gp_flags);
> > + if (rsp->gp_flags && rcu_gp_init(rsp))
> > + break;
> > + cond_resched();
> > + flush_signals(current);
> > + }
> >
> > /* Handle grace-period end. */
> > for (;;) {
> > wait_event_interruptible(rsp->gp_wq,
> > !ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->qsmask)
> > &&
> >
> > !rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(rnp));
> > if (!ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->qsmask) &&
> > + !rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(rnp) &&
> > + rcu_gp_cleanup(rsp))
> > break;
> > + cond_resched();
> > flush_signals(current);
> > }
> > }
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> Should there not be a kthread_stop() / kthread_park() call somewhere in
> there?
The kthread stops only when the system goes down, so no need for any
kthread_stop() or kthread_park(). The "return 0" suppresses complaints
about falling of the end of a non-void function.
> Also, it could be me, but all those nested for (;;) loops make the flow
> rather non-obvious.
For those two loops, I suppose I could pull the cond_resched() and
flush_signals() to the top, and make a do-while out of it.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
