On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 09:23:47AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 01:09:41AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> >> rcu_prcess_callbacks() is the softirq handler for RCU which is raised from
> >> invoke_rcu_core() which is called from __call_rcu_core().
> >>
> >> Each of these three functions checks if the cpu is online. We can remove
> >> the
> >> redundant ones. This commit removes one of these redundant check.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.pr...@gmail.com>
> >
> > Sorry, but no. There can be a long delay between raise_softirq() and
> > this function starting, particularly if ksoftirqd gets involved. The
> > CPU could easily go offline in the meantime.
> >
>
> That makes sense. I guess one of the other two checks in
> __call_rcu_core() or invoke_rcu_core() can go then?
What would have to be the case for this suggested change to be safe?
Does that condition in fact hold?
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/
