lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/3] rcu: add debug check for too many rcu_read_unlock()
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 06:03:08PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 04:04:01PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > TREE_PREEMPT_RCU maintains an rcu_read_lock_nesting counter in the
> > task structure, which happens to be a signed int. So this patch adds a
> > check for this counter being negative at the end of __rcu_read_unlock().
> > This check is under CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING, so can be thought of as being
> > part of lockdep.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/rcutree_plugin.h | 3 +++
> > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> > index f11ebd4..e77cdf3 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> > @@ -304,6 +304,9 @@ void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
> > if (--ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_lock_nesting) == 0 &&
> > unlikely(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special)))
> > rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_lock_nesting) < 0);
> > +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__rcu_read_unlock);
>
> Given that you *already* need to access t->rcu_read_lock_nesting here,
> why not just do the test all the time? Ideally you could access
> t->rcu_read_lock_nesting once, decrement it, and test for both 0 and
> negative.

Because I was paranoid about the extra branch. Perhaps needlessly
paranoid, but this is rcu_read_unlock() we are talking about here. ;-)

You seem to be suggesting making the first test be "<=", then
sorting things out later, but given that both the equals-zero and the
greater-than-zero cases are quite common, I couldn't figure out how to
avoid the extra test and branch in the common case. Hence the #ifdef.

Thanx, Paul


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-05 03:21    [W:0.086 / U:1.196 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site