lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/28] rcu: Restore checks for blocking in RCU read-side critical sections
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 04:46:22PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 01:28:35AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 12:29:43PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Long ago, using TREE_RCU with PREEMPT would result in "scheduling
> > > while atomic" diagnostics if you blocked in an RCU read-side critical
> > > section. However, PREEMPT now implies TREE_PREEMPT_RCU, which defeats
> > > this diagnostic. This commit therefore adds a replacement diagnostic
> > > based on PROVE_RCU.
> > >
> > > Because rcu_lockdep_assert() and lockdep_rcu_dereference() are now being
> > > used for things that have nothing to do with rcu_dereference(), rename
> > > lockdep_rcu_dereference() to lockdep_rcu_suspicious() and add a third
> > > argument that is a string indicating what is suspicious. This third
> > > argument is passed in from a new third argument to rcu_lockdep_assert().
> > > Update all calls to rcu_lockdep_assert() to add an informative third
> > > argument.
> > >
> > > Finally, add a pair of rcu_lockdep_assert() calls from within
> > > rcu_note_context_switch(), one complaining if a context switch occurs
> > > in an RCU-bh read-side critical section and another complaining if a
> > > context switch occurs in an RCU-sched read-side critical section.
> > > These are present only if the PROVE_RCU kernel parameter is enabled.
> > >
> > > Again, you must enable PROVE_RCU to see these new diagnostics. But you
> > > are enabling PROVE_RCU to check out new RCU uses in any case, aren't you?
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > So, do you think we can get rid of this patch now that we are going to have CONFIG_ATOMIC_SLEEP
> > working everywhere?
> >
> > The last remaining piece we need is to check rcu_preempt_depth() from schedule_debug(),
> > which does a kind of lightweight might_sleep() check alike.
>
> I believe that we need them both. Your patch provides a lightweight
> check. Mine is way heavier weight (CONFIG_PROVE_RCU is required), but
> tells you in what function the offending RCU read-side critical section
> was entered.

Well, that can be found easily in the stacktrace. But ok.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-06-09 01:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans