lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [patch 01/15] Kernel Tracepoints
From
Date
On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 14:10 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> Yeah, I was thinking in terms of rcu_dereference() working with both
> rcu_assign_pointer() and an as-yet-mythical rcu_assign_index(). Perhaps
> this would be a good time to get better names:
>
> Current: rcu_assign_pointer() rcu_dereference()
> New Pointers: rcu_publish_pointer() rcu_subscribe_pointer()
> New Indexes: rcu_publish_index() rcu_subscribe_index()

Is it really worth the effort, splitting it out into these two cases?

> And, while I am at it, work in a way of checking for either being in
> the appropriate RCU read-side critical section and/or having the
> needed lock/mutex/whatever held -- something I believe PeterZ was
> prototyping some months back.

Yeah - I have (bitrotted a bit, but should be salvageable) lockdep
annotations for rcu_dereference().

The problem with them is the huge amount of false positives.. Take for
example the Radix tree code, its perfectly fine to use the radix tree
code without RCU - say you do the old rwlock style, still it uses
rcu_dereference().

I never figured out a suitable way to annotate that.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-02 02:07    [W:0.235 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site