From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932971Ab2BBRe2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2012 12:34:28 -0500 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:47389 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932779Ab2BBRbZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2012 12:31:25 -0500 Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:30:39 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Josh Triplett Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, darren@dvhart.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, patches@linaro.org, "Paul E. McKenney" , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 21/41] rcu: Inform RCU of irq_exit() activity Message-ID: <20120202173039.GR2518@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20120201194131.GA10028@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1328125319-5205-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1328125319-5205-21-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120202023033.GN29058@leaf> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120202023033.GN29058@leaf> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12020217-2398-0000-0000-000003E31779 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 06:30:33PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 11:41:39AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > [ Alternatively, delaying the ->rcu_read_lock_nesting decrement > > until after the special handling would make the thing more robust > > in the face of interrupts as well. And there is a separate patch > > for that. ] > > Where does that separate patch live, and should it replace this one? It is #18 in this series: "rcu: Protect __rcu_read_unlock() against scheduler-using irq handlers". Both are needed. I will rework the commit message appropriately. Thanx, Paul