From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752032Ab1GTVIH (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:08:07 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:42339 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751593Ab1GTVIF convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:08:05 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH rcu/urgent 0/6] Fixes for RCU/scheduler/irq-threads trainwreck From: Peter Zijlstra To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , Ben Greear , Ed Tomlinson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, josh@joshtriplett.org, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, darren@dvhart.com, patches@linaro.org, edward.tomlinson@aero.bombardier.com In-Reply-To: <20110720192949.GM2313@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <201107192130.02080.edt@aei.ca> <201107192207.33813.edt@aei.ca> <20110720044435.GB2400@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110720133443.GG2400@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4E270A0E.6090902@candelatech.com> <20110720171532.GB2313@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110720184413.GD17977@elte.hu> <1311187978.29152.58.camel@twins> <20110720192949.GM2313@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:05:53 +0200 Message-ID: <1311195953.29152.95.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 12:29 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Peter, does #4 (protect __rcu_read_unlock() against scheduler-using > irq handlers) remove the need for #5 (Add irq_{enter,exit}() to > scheduler_ipi()) and #6 (Inform RCU of irq_exit() activity)? My guess is > "no" for #5 and "yes" for #6. More or less, we want to keep #5 for it does more than just fix RCU, but yeah, I _think_ #4 obsoletes the direct need for #6.