From dbc1651f0c5b7d13acc59d3b805a7224332fb1fb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Oleg Nesterov Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 22:19:33 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH] 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 Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- kernel/rcupdate.c | 11 ++++------- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcupdate.c b/kernel/rcupdate.c index ccc45d49ce71..05ee48316f70 100644 --- a/kernel/rcupdate.c +++ b/kernel/rcupdate.c @@ -236,12 +236,8 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_data *rdp) * 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; @@ -275,7 +271,7 @@ static void cpu_quiet(int cpu, struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp, struct rcu_state *rsp) if (cpus_empty(rsp->cpumask)) { /* batch completed ! */ rcp->completed = rcp->cur; - rcu_start_batch(rcp, rsp, 0); + rcu_start_batch(rcp, rsp); } } @@ -410,7 +406,8 @@ static void __rcu_process_callbacks(struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp, 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 { -- 2.20.1