On Thu, 24 May 2018 15:38:39 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 05:47:52PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 May 2018 13:04:58 -0700
> > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> >
> > > Looks plausible to me!
> > >
> >
> > BTW looking at the code:
> >
> > >
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 05:47:52PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2018 13:04:58 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
> > Looks plausible to me!
> >
>
> BTW looking at the code:
>
> > /* Invoke the callbacks. */
> > while (list) {
> > ne
On Wed, 23 May 2018 13:04:58 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> Looks plausible to me!
>
BTW looking at the code:
> /* Invoke the callbacks. */
> while (list) {
> next = list->next;
> local_bh_disable();
>
On Wed, 23 May 2018 17:51:19 -0700
Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Shouldn't this assignment be done outside the loop? I believe the variable
> will be initialized on each iteration.
>
> A program like this doesn't terminate:
>
> #include
>
> int main() {
> for (;;) {
> int i = 10;
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 01:04:58PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 03:13:37PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 May 2018 10:03:03 -0700
> > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> >
> > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > > > > > index 5783bdf
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 01:04:58PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 03:13:37PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 May 2018 10:03:03 -0700
> > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> >
> > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > > > > > index 5783bdf
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 03:13:37PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2018 10:03:03 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > > > > index 5783bdf86e5a..a28698e44b08 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > > > > +++ b
On Wed, 23 May 2018 10:03:03 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > > > index 5783bdf86e5a..a28698e44b08 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > > > @@ -743,6 +743,12 @@ static int __noreturn rcu_ta
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:45:31PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2018 08:57:34 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:38:12PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)"
> > >
> > > RCU tasks callbacks can take at least 1 second
On Wed, 23 May 2018 08:57:34 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:38:12PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)"
> >
> > RCU tasks callbacks can take at least 1 second before the callbacks are
> > executed. This happens even if the hold-out task
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:38:12PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)"
>
> RCU tasks callbacks can take at least 1 second before the callbacks are
> executed. This happens even if the hold-out tasks enter their quiescent states
> quickly. I noticed this when I was testi
11 matches
Mail list logo
