Thoughts on this RCU idle entry/exit patch?

[Paul E. McKenney]

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 <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/