lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 2 Mar 2010 06:55:45 -0800
From"Paul E. McKenney" <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 1/2] rcu: suppress RCU lockdep warnings during early boot
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 03:12:57PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 01:20:59PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > + if (!rcu_scheduler_active || !debug_locks)
> > > > + return 1;
> > > > + return lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map);
> > >
> > > > + if (!rcu_scheduler_active || !debug_locks)
> > > > + return 1;
> > > > + return lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map);
> > >
> > > i guess there could be a common helper here?
> >
> > Will do!
> >
> > > Also, could we clear rcu_scheduler_active when we clear debug_locks? That way
> > > only a single test is needed, a generic 'is lock debugging active'.
> >
> > Doing that will break synchronize_rcu(), which returns immediately if
> > !rcu_scheduler_active.
>
> Ok - then have an debug_rcu flag which is cleared appropriately - so that the
> fastpath impact is reduced?

Good point, will do!

Thanx, Paul


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-02 15:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2010