From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755348Ab1FXLUz (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2011 07:20:55 -0400 Received: from mail-qy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.216.174]:59286 "EHLO mail-qy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753234Ab1FXLUy (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2011 07:20:54 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:20:49 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: LKML , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Lai Jiangshan , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3 v3] rcu: Detect rcu uses under extended quiescent state Message-ID: <20110624112045.GF8058@somewhere.redhat.com> References: <1308870760-14153-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <20110624035311.GB2266@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110624035311.GB2266@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 08:53:11PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 01:12:37AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > This time I have no current practical cases to fix. Those I fixed > > in previous versions were actually using rcu_dereference_raw(), which > > is legal in extended qs. > > > > Frederic Weisbecker (3): > > rcu: Detect illegal rcu dereference in extended quiescent state > > rcu: Inform the user about dynticks idle mode on PROVE_RCU warning > > rcu: Warn when rcu_read_lock() is used in extended quiescent state > > > > include/linux/rcupdate.h | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > > kernel/lockdep.c | 4 +++ > > kernel/rcupdate.c | 4 +++ > > kernel/rcutiny.c | 13 +++++++++ > > kernel/rcutree.c | 14 +++++++++ > > 5 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > Queued, thank you, Frederic! > > I have also applied your approach to SRCU, and I applied the following > to simplify the code a bit -- please let me know if there are any > problems with this approach. > > Thanx, Paul > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > rcu: Remove one layer of abstraction from PROVE_RCU checking > > Simplify things a bit by substituting the definitions of the single-line > rcu_read_acquire(), rcu_read_release(), rcu_read_acquire_bh(), > rcu_read_release_bh(), rcu_read_acquire_sched(), and > rcu_read_release_sched() functions at their call points. > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Yeah looks good. Thanks!