From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "tj@kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Change synchronize_rcu() in scsi_device_quiesce() into synchronize_sched() Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:02:25 -0700 Message-ID: <20180319170225.GC519464@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> References: <20180316173516.3048-1-bart.vanassche@wdc.com> <20180319143147.GF2943022@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <1521472566.2776.6.camel@wdc.com> <20180319152144.GM2943022@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <1521476333.2776.9.camel@wdc.com> <20180319162921.GS2943022@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <1521478664.2776.12.camel@wdc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1521478664.2776.12.camel@wdc.com> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Bart Van Assche Cc: "jthumshirn@suse.de" , "hch@lst.de" , "martin@lichtvoll.de" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , "ming.lei@redhat.com" , "martin.petersen@oracle.com" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "oleksandr@natalenko.name" , "hare@suse.com" , "jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com" List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Hey, On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 04:57:45PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > For synchronization primitives that wait having a stronger synchronization > primitive nested inside a more relaxed one can lead to a deadlock. But since > the rcu read lock primitives do not wait it could be safe to use that kind > of nesting with RCU. Do you perhaps know whether any documentation is > available about that kind of nesting or whether it is already used elsewhere > in the kernel? Oh, we nest them all the time. They're like (and sometimes literally are) preempt_disable() and don't care about nest ordering. Thanks. -- tejun