Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()

Dmitry Torokhov
2007-09-19T19:49:34Z

On 9/19/07, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:49:56 -0400 "Dmitry Torokhov"
> <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 9/19/07, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > > PS to previous -- any problem with inserting rcu_read_lock() and
> > > rcu_read_unlock() around the portion of the IRQ handler that has
> > > these accesses?
> > >
> >
> > I guess I could but it is an extra lock that needs to be managed and
> > given the fact that it is not really needed (other to make a newly
> > developed tool happy) I am hestsant to do that.
>
> As is, these sites are a bug in -rt and we'll need to fix them anyway.
>
> As for the code you pointed me to, the i8042 driver, it seems to play
> way to funny tricks for a simple 'slow' driver.

Even "slow" driver should try not to slow down the rest of the system
if it can help it. I am sorry if the thing it does do not quite fit in
with the changes you are proposing but it does not make the exeisting
code invalid.

>
> If you replace the spin_lock() + sync_sched(), with rcu_read_lock() +
> rcu_call() it should work again without adding an extra lock.
>

Except that I need spin_lock_irq for other reasons. I could take the
same lock in write-side code and not use RCU at all but using RCU
allows opening/closing input devices without slowing down interrupt
handlers so why not use it?

--
Dmitry