From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com,
dipankar@in.ibm.com, 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, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, adobriyan@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [patch 0/6] rcu head debugobjects
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 07:53:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100329145329.GA2569@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100329133933.GA23238@Krystal>
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 09:39:33AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Thinking about the rcu head init topic, we might be able to drop the
> init_rcu_head() initializer. The idea is the following:
>
> - We need init_rcu_head_on_stack()/destroy_rcu_head_on_stack().
> - call_rcu() populates the rcu_head and normally does not care about it being
> pre-initialized.
> - The activation fixup can detect if a non-initialized rcu head is being
> activated and just perform the fixup without complaining.
> - If we have two call_rcu() in a row in the same GP on the same rcu_head, the
> activation check will detect it.
>
> So either we remove all the init_rcu_head(), as was originally proposed, or we
> use one that is a no-op on !DEBUG configs and initialize the object with DEBUG
> configs.
>
> That removes the dependency on object_is_static().
If I understand correctly, this does sound good. Here is what I think
you are proposing:
o call_rcu() and friends only complain if handed an rcu_head
structure that is still queued awaiting a grace period.
They don't care otherwise.
o rcu_do_batch() complains unless the rcu_head structure has
most recently been enqueued by call_rcu() or one if its friends.
Did I get it right?
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-29 14:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-27 15:32 [patch 0/6] rcu head debugobjects Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-27 15:32 ` [patch 1/6] commit 501fdb3aeeb2444f86d289a4a044cf7c8fbc17df Author: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> Date: Sat Mar 27 10:52:11 2010 -0400 Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-27 15:32 ` [patch 2/6] commit afd066d60b77e28651bb8323fc8cfcedacc5cbf8 Author: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> Date: Sat Mar 27 10:53:30 " Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-27 15:32 ` [patch 3/6] commit 418b6f2c2ddba7c91d1186b68618092910260c32 Author: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> Date: Sat Mar 27 11:05:38 " Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-27 15:32 ` [patch 4/6] Debugobjects transition check Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-27 15:32 ` [patch 5/6] tree/tiny rcu: Add debug RCU head objects (v4) Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-27 15:32 ` [patch 6/6] kernel call_rcu usage: initialize rcu_head structures (v2) Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-27 15:40 ` [patch 0/6] rcu head debugobjects David Miller
2010-03-27 22:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-03-27 23:14 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-27 23:20 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-27 23:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-03-28 0:02 ` [RFC patch] extable and module add object is static Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-28 0:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-03-29 1:39 ` Lai Jiangshan
2010-03-29 3:18 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-29 8:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-29 13:16 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-29 13:55 ` Tejun Heo
2010-03-29 14:03 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-29 13:39 ` [patch 0/6] rcu head debugobjects Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-29 14:53 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2010-03-29 15:04 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-03-29 16:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-03-28 2:07 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-03-28 4:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-03-29 0:45 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
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=20100329145329.GA2569@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--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