Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] rcu: uninline rcu_lock_acquire() and rcu_lock_release()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 06/30, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:18:37PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > May be correct this time ;) Based on paulmck/linux-rcu.git rcu/next.
> >
> > 2/2 is new and hopefully trivial. But! the numbers look suspiciously
> > good, I do not understand where does the difference come from...
>
> Probably from rcu_dereference_raw() and rcu_dereference_check(..., 1).  ;-)

Yes, sure, this was the motivation for the patch. But I didn't expect the
50k difference ;)

OK, I understand now. I forgot that every list_for_each_rcu/list_entry_rcu
has rcu_dereference_raw().

> Queued and kicked off testing, both mine and (indirectly) Fengguang's.

Thanks!

Oleg.

--
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/