On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 12:52:38PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 6 Sep 2013 18:40:18 +0200 > Frederic Weisbecker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I can't use plain preempt_disable() in function tracing. > > > > > > Also, since it's a misnomer to say the cpu is idle in NO_HZ_FULL when > > > we are coming from userspace, can we rename that? > > > > > > Perhaps we can also have a __rcu_is_cpu_tracking() (or whatever), with > > > the "__" appended that does not do the preempt disable. > > > > rcu_is_cpu_eqs() is probably better. It refers to other related "eqs" naming > > in RCU APIs. > > But that will just confuse the heck out of people. When I see "eqs" I > equate that with "equals". What does the rcu cpu equal?
It's "extended quiescent state". There is already rcu_eqs_enter() and rcu_eqs_exit(). You're right, may be we can rename that to avoid confusion with "equals". I don't mind much. I'm happy as long as the reader rcu_is_cpu_foo() and the writers rcu_foo_enter() and rcu_foo_exit() have consistant naming. > > -- 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/
