Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:19:33 +0300 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | [PATCH 3/5] rcu: don't set ->next_pending in rcu_start_batch() |
| |
I think it is better to set ->next_pending in the caller, when it is needed. This saves one parameter, and this coincides with cpu_quiet() beahaviour, which sets ->completed = ->cur itself.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
--- 2.6.15/kernel/rcupdate.c~3_NPEND 2006-01-08 21:55:45.000000000 +0300 +++ 2.6.15/kernel/rcupdate.c 2006-01-08 22:46:13.000000000 +0300 @@ -249,12 +249,8 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_data * active batch and the batch to be registered has not already occurred. * Caller must hold rcu_state.lock. */ -static void rcu_start_batch(struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp, struct rcu_state *rsp, - int next_pending) +static void rcu_start_batch(struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp, struct rcu_state *rsp) { - if (next_pending) - rcp->next_pending = 1; - if (rcp->next_pending && rcp->completed == rcp->cur) { rcp->next_pending = 0; @@ -288,7 +284,7 @@ static void cpu_quiet(int cpu, struct rc if (cpus_empty(rsp->cpumask)) { /* batch completed ! */ rcp->completed = rcp->cur; - rcu_start_batch(rcp, rsp, 0); + rcu_start_batch(rcp, rsp); } } @@ -423,7 +419,8 @@ static void __rcu_process_callbacks(stru if (!rcp->next_pending) { /* and start it/schedule start if it's a new batch */ spin_lock(&rsp->lock); - rcu_start_batch(rcp, rsp, 1); + rcp->next_pending = 1; + rcu_start_batch(rcp, rsp); spin_unlock(&rsp->lock); } } else { - 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/
| |