lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 15/18] rcu: give different levels of the rcu_node hierarchy distinct lockdep names
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 04:59:59PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 03:02:38PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > Proposed for 2.6.34, not for inclusion.
> >
> > Previously, each level of the rcu_node hierarchy had the same rather
> > unimaginative name: "&rcu_node_class[i]". This makes lockdep diagnostics
> > involving these lockdep classes less helpful than would be nice. This
> > patch fixes this by giving each level of the rcu_node hierarchy a distinct
> > name: "rcu_node_level_0", "rcu_node_level_1", and so on.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/rcutree.c | 9 ++++++++-
> > 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > index 0a4c328..a6e45f6 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > @@ -1811,11 +1811,17 @@ static void __init rcu_init_levelspread(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> > */
> > static void __init rcu_init_one(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> > {
> > + static char *buf[] = { "rcu_node_level_0",
> > + "rcu_node_level_1",
> > + "rcu_node_level_2",
> > + "rcu_node_level_3" }; /* Match MAX_RCU_LVLS */
> > int cpustride = 1;
> > int i;
> > int j;
> > struct rcu_node *rnp;
> >
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(MAX_RCU_LVLS > 4); /* Fix buf[] initialization! */
> > +
>
> BUILD_BUG_ON seems better. For that matter, please consider moving
> these near the rest of the level-specific defines, making them const,
> and ideally not emitting the strings for levels you don't have.

Good point, I had forgotten about BUILD_BUG_ON(). And reviewing its
definition, I can see why one might be motivated to forget. ;-)

The reason I put the definition of buf[] here and the reason that I am not
worried about the memory it consumes is that this is an __init function,
so its memory should be reused once the system boots. And if __init
does not apply to the static variables in a function, it should! ;-)

Thanx, Paul


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-16 03:03    [W:0.131 / U:1.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site