This is on top of the first patch (but still not against your tree). I
wonder what you think about this one. No special operations.
Since dynticks_idle is only ever modified by the local cpu we do
not need to use atomics there.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter
Index: linux/kernel/rcu/tree.c
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:18:31AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > This is on top of the first patch (but still not against your tree). I
> > wonder what you think about this one. No special operations.
> >
> >
> > Since dynticks_idle is only ever
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:18:31AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
This is on top of the first patch (but still not against your tree). I
wonder what you think about this one. No special operations.
Since dynticks_idle is only ever modified
This is on top of the first patch (but still not against your tree). I
wonder what you think about this one. No special operations.
Since dynticks_idle is only ever modified by the local cpu we do
not need to use atomics there.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter c...@linux.com
Index:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:18:31AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> This is on top of the first patch (but still not against your tree). I
> wonder what you think about this one. No special operations.
>
>
> Since dynticks_idle is only ever modified by the local cpu we do
> not need to use
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:18:31AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
This is on top of the first patch (but still not against your tree). I
wonder what you think about this one. No special operations.
Since dynticks_idle is only ever modified by the local cpu we do
not need to use atomics
6 matches
Mail list logo
