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

Dmitry Torokhov
2007-09-19T21:29:32Z

On 9/19/07, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:41:04 -0400 "Dmitry Torokhov"
> <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If the IRQ handler does rcu_read_lock(),unlock() and the i8042_stop()
> > > function does sync_rcu() instead of _sched(), it should be good again.
> > > It will not affect anything else than the task that calls _stop(). And
> > > even there the only change is that the sleep might be a tad longer.
> >
> > And the IRQ handler needs to do some extra job... Anyway, it looks -rt
> > breaks synchronize_sched() and needs to have it fixed:
> >
> > "/**
> > * synchronize_sched - block until all CPUs have exited any non-preemptive
> > * kernel code sequences.
> > *
> > * This means that all preempt_disable code sequences, including NMI and
> > * hardware-interrupt handlers, in progress on entry will have completed
> > * before this primitive returns."
>
> That still does as it says in -rt. Its just that the interrupt handler
> will be preemptible so the guarantees it gives are useless.

Please note "... including NMI and hardware-interrupt handlers ..."

>
> > > I find it curious that a driver that is 'low performant' and does not
> > > suffer lock contention pioneers locking schemes. I agree with
> > > optimizing, but this is not the place to push the envelope.
> >
> > Please realize that evey microsecond wasted on a 'low performant'
> > driver is taken from high performers and if we can help it why
> > shouldn't we?
>
> sure, but the cache eviction caused by running the driver will have
> more impact than the added rcu_read_{,un}lock() calls.

Are you saying that adding rcu_read_{,un}lock() will help with cache
eviction? How?

--
Dmitry