On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 09:22:15 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> However, the API we are arguing about is deep within the implementation. > It is not at the level of rcu_read_lock(). It is something that should > not have that many invocations -- after all, the things using it are > binding themselves unusually close to RCU. > Is it? I guess the question is, is dynamic ticks an extension of RCU, or is it just using the RCU implementation as a convenience? Also the OP patch is for function tracing, something not coupled by RCU at all. Just a way to know if it is safe to call functions that use RCU or not. That can have "this_cpu()" by the way as a way to tell us that we must disable preemption before hand. Which is what caused this thread to start with, as it was suggested to combine rcu_is_cpu_idle() which brought up why that function disables preemption. -- Steve -- 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/
