[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 <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
diff --git a/kernel/rcupdate.c b/kernel/rcupdate.c
index ccc45d4..05ee483 100644
--- a/kernel/rcupdate.c
+++ b/kernel/rcupdate.c
@@ -236,12 +236,8 @@
* 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 @@
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 @@
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 {
