Re: [PATCH v3 tip/core/rcu 3/9] rcu: Add synchronous grace-period waiting for RCU-tasks

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 04:47:19PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/01, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 11:32:51AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 05:09:26PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > On 07/31, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > +void synchronize_rcu_tasks(void)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	/* Complain if the scheduler has not started.  */
> > > > > +	rcu_lockdep_assert(!rcu_scheduler_active,
> > > > > +			   "synchronize_rcu_tasks called too soon");
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/* Wait for the grace period. */
> > > > > +	wait_rcu_gp(call_rcu_tasks);
> > > > > +}
> > > >
> > > > Btw, what about CONFIG_PREEMPT=n ?
> > > >
> > > > I mean, can't synchronize_rcu_tasks() be synchronize_sched() in this
> > > > case?
> > >
> > > Excellent point, indeed it can!
> > >
> > > And if I do it right, it will make CONFIG_TASKS_RCU=y safe for kernel
> > > tinification.  ;-)
> >
> > Unless, that is, we need to wait for trampolines in the idle loop...
> >
> > Sounds like a question for Steven.  ;-)
> 
> Sure, but the full blown synchronize_rcu_tasks() can't handle the idle threads
> anyway. An idle thread can not be deactivated and for_each_process() can't see
> it anyway.

Indeed, if idle threads need to be tracked, their tracking will need to
be at least partially special-cased.

							Thanx, Paul