Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 3 Nov 2011 14:45:50 -0700 | | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 0/28] Preview of RCU changes for 3.3 |
| |
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 09:55:35PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 01:30:17PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > This patchset permits idle tasks to use RCU read-side critical sections, > > although they are still prohibited between tick_nohz_idle_exit_norcu() > > and tick_nohz_idle_exit_norcu(); makes synchronize_sched_expedited() > > better able to share work among concurrent callers, allows ftrace_dump() > > to be invoked from modules, dumps tracing upon detection of an rcutorture > > failure, detects illegal use of RCU read-side critical sections from > > extended quiescent states, legitimizes the pre-existin use of RCU in the > > idle notifiers, fixes a memory-barrier botch, introduces an SRCU-like bulk > > reference count, improve dynticks entry/exit tracing, further improves > > RCU's ability to allow a given CPU to enter dyntick-idle mode quickly, > > fixes idle-task checks, updates documentation, and additional fixes > > from a still-ongoing top-to-bottom inspection of RCU. The patches are > > as follows: > > I've reviewed all of these patches. For all of them except those > indicated below: > Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Thank you for your careful review and thoughtful comments!
I have pushed the changes to -rcu at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git rcu/dev
Could you please check to make sure that I got your Reviewed-by on the right commits?
Thanx, Paul
> > 1. Strengthen memory barriers used in PowerPC value-returning > > atomics and locking primitives. It is likely that this > > commit will be superseded by something from the powerpc > > maintainers. The need for this strengthening was validated > > by tooling from Peter Sewell's group at the University of > > Cambridge. > > As before, I don't have the background on powerpc to provide review on > this one. However, I trust Peter Sewell's group to have gotten the > details right. :) > > > 5. Document the troubleshooting of lockdep lock-class leaks. > > I replied with a few comments and a typo fix. > > > 11. Remove a useless self-awaken when setting up expedited grace > > periods, courtesy of Thomas Gleixner and the -rt effort. > > Replied with a fix: commit needs splitting. > > > 12-17. Make lockdep-RCU warn when RCU read-side primitives are > > invoked from an idle RCU extended quiescent state, mostly > > courtesy of Frederic Weisbecker. > > Replied to 17 with a minor nit, but Reviewed-by still applies to all > five with or without that nit fixed. > > > 18-23. Separate out the scheduler-clock tick's idea of dyntick > > idle from RCU's notion of an idle extended quiescent state, mostly > > courtesy of Frederic Weisbecker. These commits are needed for > > Frederic's work to suppress the scheduler-clock tick when there > > is but one runnable task on a given CPU. > > Very much looking forward to that work. Any pointer to more information > on tickless-when-one-task? > > Replied to patch 19 with some naming comments; the rest seem fine. > > > 24. Introduce a bulk reference count, which is related to SRCU, > > but which allows a reference to be acquired in an irq handler > > and released by the task that was interrupted. > > Replied with comments. > > > 27. Allow CPUs with pending RCU callbacks to enter dyntick-idle > > mode. Beware this commit, as it compiled and passed rcutorture > > on the first try, which historically has indicated the presence > > of subtle and highly destructive bugs. > > Heh. I reviewed this one particularly carefully, then, but I didn't > find any logic errors. I did reply with a couple of comments, though. > > > 28. Fix RCU's determination of whether or not it is running in the > > context of an idle task. > > Replied with concerns. > > - Josh Triplett >
|  |