Hello, Frederic!
The following patch seems to me to be a good idea to better handle
task nesting. Any reason why it would be a bad thing?
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
rcu: Allow task-level idle entry/exit nesting
The current task-level idle entry/exit code forces an entry/exit on
each call, regardless of the nesting level. This commit therefore
properly accounts for nesting.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
index 106f7f5cdd1d..f0be20886617 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
@@ -411,11 +411,12 @@ static void rcu_eqs_enter(bool user)
rdtp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_dynticks);
oldval = rdtp->dynticks_nesting;
WARN_ON_ONCE((oldval & DYNTICK_TASK_NEST_MASK) == 0);
- if ((oldval & DYNTICK_TASK_NEST_MASK) == DYNTICK_TASK_NEST_VALUE)
+ if ((oldval & DYNTICK_TASK_NEST_MASK) == DYNTICK_TASK_NEST_VALUE) {
rdtp->dynticks_nesting = 0;
- else
+ rcu_eqs_enter_common(rdtp, oldval, user);
+ } else {
rdtp->dynticks_nesting -= DYNTICK_TASK_NEST_VALUE;
- rcu_eqs_enter_common(rdtp, oldval, user);
+ }
}
/**
@@ -533,11 +534,12 @@ static void rcu_eqs_exit(bool user)
rdtp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_dynticks);
oldval = rdtp->dynticks_nesting;
WARN_ON_ONCE(oldval < 0);
- if (oldval & DYNTICK_TASK_NEST_MASK)
+ if (oldval & DYNTICK_TASK_NEST_MASK) {
rdtp->dynticks_nesting += DYNTICK_TASK_NEST_VALUE;
- else
+ } else {
rdtp->dynticks_nesting = DYNTICK_TASK_EXIT_IDLE;
- rcu_eqs_exit_common(rdtp, oldval, user);
+ rcu_eqs_exit_common(rdtp, oldval, user);
+ }
}
/**
--
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/
