Lines Matching refs:to

6 is that since there is only one CPU, it should not be necessary to
7 wait for anything else to get done, since there are no other CPUs for
8 anything else to be happening on.  Although this approach will -sort- -of-
20 which deletes element B, and then invokes call_rcu() to free element B
23 Now, if call_rcu() were to directly invoke its arguments, then upon return
41 deletes element B from the list, then passes it to call_rcu() for deferred
43 RCU usage, since call_rcu() must wait for a grace period to elapse.
44 Therefore, in this case, allowing call_rcu() to immediately invoke
45 its arguments would cause it to fail to make the fundamental guarantee
49 Quick Quiz #1: why is it -not- legal to invoke synchronize_rcu() in
57 call_rcu() were to directly invoke the callback, the result would
60 In some cases, it would possible to restructure to code so that
64 1.	If a number of items need to be passed to call_rcu() within
65 	the same critical section, then the code would need to create
72 	It is far better to guarantee that callbacks are invoked
73 	with no locks held than to have to modify such APIs to allow
74 	arbitrary data items to be passed back up through them.
84 Permitting call_rcu() to immediately invoke its arguments breaks RCU,
89 It -is- safe for synchronize_sched() and synchronize_rcu_bh() to return
91 to return immediately on UP systems, except when running preemptable
98 Answer to Quick Quiz #1:
99 	Why is it -not- legal to invoke synchronize_rcu() in this case?
104 	read-side critical section, and is not permitted to block.
106 Answer to Quick Quiz #2:
113 	lock must use something like spin_lock_irqsave() to
116 	If the process-context code were to simply use spin_lock(),
127 Answer to Quick Quiz #3:
134 	end of the grace period, which would come as a nasty shock to