lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [BUG?] [Ext4] INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage
From
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:39:49AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>
>> I think it's no problem.
>>
>> That's because migration always holds lock_page on the file page.
>> So the page couldn't remove from radix.
>
> It may be "ok" in that it won't cause a race, but it still leaves an
> unsightly warning if LOCKDEP is enabled, and LOCKDEP warnings will
> cause /proc_lock_stat to be disabled.  So I think it still needs to be
> fixed by adding rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() to
> migrate_page_move_mapping().
>
>                                                     - Ted
>

Yes. if it is really "ok" about race, we will add rcu_read_lock with
below comment to prevent false positive.
"suppress RCU lockdep false positives".
But I am not sure it's good although rcu_read_lock is little cost.
Whenever we find false positive, should we add rcu_read_lock to
suppress although it's no problem in real product?
Couldn't we provide following function? (or we might have already it
but I missed it. )

/*
* Suppress RCU lockdep false positive.
*/
#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU
#define rcu_read_lock_suppress rcu_read_lock
#else
#define rcu_read_lock_suppress
#endif


--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-22 01:41    [W:0.067 / U:2.308 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site