lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] rcu: Improve detection of illegal synchronize_rcu() call from RCU read side
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 03:06:03AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 06:01:08PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 02:45:20AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 01:30:35PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 08:03:39PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > > Actually for the case of RCU, the wait_for_completion() called by synchronize_rcu()

[ . . . ]

> > > > > rcutiny seems to be fine with the cond_resched() call, but srcu needs
> > > > > a special treatment.
> > > >
> > > > For the moment, I just applied rcu_lockdep_assert() everywhere -- zero
> > > > cost on non-lockdep kernels, and fully handles all of the RCU simple
> > > > self-deadlock cases.
> > >
> > > So, for RCU I'm not sure this is useful given the might_sleep() things.
> > > But for srcu it is.
> >
> > One nice thing about the lockdep approach is that it tracks where the
> > conflicting RCU read-side critical section started. But I am planning
> > for these to be 3.4 material, so we do have some time to refine them.
>
> Yeah sure. And in any case it's still good to keep might_sleep() early
> to spot other sources of illegal atomic sections (irqs disabled and co)

Agreed!

Thanx, Paul



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-05 03:21    [W:0.039 / U:0.192 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site