From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758505AbXHEPfa (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Aug 2007 11:35:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755343AbXHEPfX (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Aug 2007 11:35:23 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-04.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.58]:57351 "EHLO ms-smtp-04.nyroc.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752447AbXHEPfW (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Aug 2007 11:35:22 -0400 Subject: [PATCH RT] put in a relatively high number for rcu read lock upper limit. From: Steven Rostedt To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , RT , LKML In-Reply-To: <20070805150449.GA19418@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1186289484.636.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1186290332.636.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070805065948.GB515@elte.hu> <20070805150449.GA19418@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:35:00 -0400 Message-Id: <1186328100.636.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Paul and Ingo, Should we just remove the upper limit check, or is something like this patch sound? -- Steve When DEBUG_KERNEL is set, place an upper bound limit on the rcu read lock set to 100. If we go that deep, then a warn on will print. Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt Index: linux-2.6.23-rc1-rt7/kernel/rcupreempt.c =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.23-rc1-rt7.orig/kernel/rcupreempt.c 2007-08-05 11:25:38.000000000 -0400 +++ linux-2.6.23-rc1-rt7/kernel/rcupreempt.c 2007-08-05 11:30:33.000000000 -0400 @@ -50,6 +50,14 @@ #include #include +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL +/* Picking 100 as a high enough limit on rcu read lock nesting. */ +# define rcu_read_lock_check_upper_limit() \ + WARN_ON_ONCE(current->rcu_read_lock_nesting > 100); +#else +# define rcu_read_lock_check_upper_limit() do { } while(0) +#endif + /* * PREEMPT_RCU data structures. */ @@ -129,9 +137,9 @@ void __rcu_read_lock(void) atomic_inc(current->rcu_flipctr2); smp_mb__after_atomic_inc(); /* might optimize out... */ } - } else { - WARN_ON_ONCE(current->rcu_read_lock_nesting > NR_CPUS); - } + } else + rcu_read_lock_check_upper_limit(); + local_irq_restore(oldirq); }