In article <20010912182440.3975719b.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> you wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:54:17 +0200
> Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> wrote:
>> Only in 2.4.10pre7aa1: 00_rcu-1
>>
>> wait_for_rcu and call_rcu implementation (from IBM). I did some
>> modifications with respect to the original version from IBM.
>> In particular I dropped the vmalloc_rcu/kmalloc_rcu, the
>> rcu_head must always be allocated in the data structures, it has
>> to be a field of a class, rather than hiding it in the allocation
>> and playing dirty and risky with casts on a bigger allocation.
> Hi Andrea,
> Like the kernel threads approach, but AFAICT it won't work for the case of two CPUs running wait_for_rcu at the same time (on a 4-way or above).
The patch I submitted to Andrea had logic to make sure that
two CPUs don't execute wait_for_rcu() at the same time.
Somehow it seems to have got lost in Andrea's modifications.
I will look at that and submit a new patch to Andrea, if necessary.
As for wrappers, I am agnostic. However, I think sooner or later
people will start asking for them, if we go by our past experience.
Thanks
Dipankar
-- Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com> Project: http://lse.sourceforge.net Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Lab, Bangalore, India. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 15 2001 - 21:00:36 EST