From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca,
josh@joshtriplett.org, dvhltc@us.ibm.com, niv@us.ibm.com,
tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 02/18] rcu: adjust force_quiescent_state() locking, step 2
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:02:25 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <12609181611638-git-send-email-> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091215230213.GA9093@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
From: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Proposed for 2.6.34, not for inclusion.
This patch releases rnp->lock after the end of force_quiescent_state()'s
switch statement. This is a second step towards prohibiting starting
grace periods while force_quiescent_state() is executing, which will
reduce the number and complexity of races that force_quiescent_state()
is involved in.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
kernel/rcutree.c | 13 +++----------
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
index eae331d..d42ad30 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
@@ -1219,7 +1219,6 @@ static void force_quiescent_state(struct rcu_state *rsp, int relaxed)
case RCU_GP_IDLE:
case RCU_GP_INIT:
- spin_unlock(&rnp->lock);
break; /* grace period idle or initializing, ignore. */
case RCU_SAVE_DYNTICK:
@@ -1246,10 +1245,8 @@ static void force_quiescent_state(struct rcu_state *rsp, int relaxed)
rsp->completed_fqs = lastcomp;
forcenow = signaled == RCU_SAVE_COMPLETED;
}
- if (!forcenow) {
- spin_unlock(&rnp->lock);
+ if (!forcenow)
break;
- }
/* fall into next case. */
case RCU_FORCE_QS:
@@ -1262,14 +1259,10 @@ static void force_quiescent_state(struct rcu_state *rsp, int relaxed)
/* Leave state in case more forcing is required. */
- break;
-
- default:
-
- spin_unlock(&rnp->lock);
- WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
+ spin_lock(&rnp->lock);
break;
}
+ spin_unlock(&rnp->lock);
unlock_fqs_ret:
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rsp->fqslock, flags);
}
--
1.5.2.5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-15 23:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-15 23:02 [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 0/18] rcu: simplify race conditions, add checking Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 01/18] rcu: adjust force_quiescent_state() locking, step 1 Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 03/18] rcu: prohibit starting new grace periods while forcing quiescent states Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 04/18] rcu: eliminate local variable signaled from force_quiescent_state() Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 05/18] rcu: eliminate local variable lastcomp " Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 06/18] rcu: eliminate second argument of rcu_process_dyntick() Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 07/18] rcu: eliminate rcu_process_dyntick() return value Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 08/18] rcu: remove leg of force_quiescent_state() switch statement Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 09/18] rcu: remove redundant grace-period check Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 10/18] rcu: make force_quiescent_state() start grace period if needed Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 11/18] rcu: add force_quiescent_state() testing to rcutorture Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 12/18] rcu: make MAINTAINERS file match new RCU reality Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-16 0:53 ` Josh Triplett
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 13/18] rcu: add debug check for too many rcu_read_unlock() Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 14/18] rcu: lockdep check for exiting to user space as RCU reader Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-16 10:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-16 15:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 15/18] rcu: give different levels of the rcu_node hierarchy distinct lockdep names Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-16 0:59 ` Josh Triplett
2009-12-16 1:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-16 10:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-16 10:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-16 15:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 16/18] rcu: make lockdep aware of SRCU read-side critical sections Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 17/18] rcu: Provide different lockdep classes for each flavor of RCU Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-15 23:02 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 18/18] rcu: add primitives to check for RCU read-side critical sections Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-16 1:04 ` Josh Triplett
2009-12-16 2:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-16 10:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-16 15:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=12609181611638-git-send-email- \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox