Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:01:22 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 0/5] Expedited grace periods encouraging normal ones |
| |
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 12:12:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 08:37:01PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > Wait, what? Why is anything using traditional (non-S) RCU while *any* > > > lock is held? > > > > In their defense, it is a sleeplock that is never taken except when > > rearranging networking configuration. Sometimes they need a grace period > > under the lock. So synchronize_net() checks to see if RTNL is held, and > > does a synchronize_rcu_expedited() if so and a synchronize_rcu() if not. > > Sounds vile.
OK, I'll bite. Exactly what seems especially vile about it?
Thanx, Paul
| |