From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] powerpc: Add rcu_read_lock() to gup_fast() implementation Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:54:51 +1000 Message-ID: <1271400891.13059.186.camel@pasglop> References: <20100408191737.296180458@chello.nl> <20100408192722.643778654@chello.nl> <1271120731.13059.6.camel@pasglop> <20100413034311.GB2772@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1271253110.32749.47.camel@laptop> <20100415142852.GA2471@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:36899 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750752Ab0DPHZp (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Apr 2010 03:25:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100415142852.GA2471@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Andrea Arcangeli , Avi Kivity , Thomas Gleixner , Rik van Riel , Ingo Molnar , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, David Miller , Hugh Dickins , Mel Gorman , Nick Piggin On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 07:28 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Of course, with call_rcu_sched(), the corresponding RCU read-side > critical > sections are non-preemptible. Therefore, in CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT, these > read-side critical sections must use raw spinlocks. > > Can the code in question accommodate these restrictions? What we protect against is always code that hard-disable IRQs (though there seem to be a bug in the hugepages code there...). Would that work ? Cheers, Ben.