From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] rcu: uninline rcu_lock_acquire() and rcu_lock_release()
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 17:39:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140702153901.GA9535@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140701145523.GA12547@redhat.com>
On 07/01, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 06/30, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:18:37PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > 2/2 is new and hopefully trivial. But! the numbers look suspiciously
> > > good, I do not understand where does the difference come from...
> >
> > Probably from rcu_dereference_raw() and rcu_dereference_check(..., 1). ;-)
>
> Yes, sure, this was the motivation for the patch. But I didn't expect the
> 50k difference ;)
>
> OK, I understand now. I forgot that every list_for_each_rcu/list_entry_rcu
> has rcu_dereference_raw().
And this naturally suggests that rcu_read_lock_held() should be uninlined
too (and rcu_read_lock_sched_held(), but this needs another patch).
But I still can't understand the difference reported by "size vmlinux",
- 5541731 3014560 14757888 23314179
+ 5513182 3026848 14757888 23297918
it removes 28K from .text, but somehow it adds 12K to .data. I do not
see any difference in .data when I compare individual .o files before/
after this patch.
Confused.
Oleg.
diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
index e8c55d8..8980817 100644
--- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
+++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
@@ -378,42 +378,8 @@ extern void rcu_lock_release_bh(void);
extern void rcu_lock_acquire_sched(void);
extern void rcu_lock_release_sched(void);
-/**
- * rcu_read_lock_held() - might we be in RCU read-side critical section?
- *
- * If CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC is selected, returns nonzero iff in an RCU
- * read-side critical section. In absence of CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC,
- * this assumes we are in an RCU read-side critical section unless it can
- * prove otherwise. This is useful for debug checks in functions that
- * require that they be called within an RCU read-side critical section.
- *
- * Checks debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() to prevent false positives during boot
- * and while lockdep is disabled.
- *
- * Note that rcu_read_lock() and the matching rcu_read_unlock() must
- * occur in the same context, for example, it is illegal to invoke
- * rcu_read_unlock() in process context if the matching rcu_read_lock()
- * was invoked from within an irq handler.
- *
- * Note that rcu_read_lock() is disallowed if the CPU is either idle or
- * offline from an RCU perspective, so check for those as well.
- */
-static inline int rcu_read_lock_held(void)
-{
- if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled())
- return 1;
- if (!rcu_is_watching())
- return 0;
- if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online())
- return 0;
- return lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map);
-}
-
-/*
- * rcu_read_lock_bh_held() is defined out of line to avoid #include-file
- * hell.
- */
-int rcu_read_lock_bh_held(void);
+extern int rcu_read_lock_held(void);
+extern int rcu_read_lock_bh_held(void);
/**
* rcu_read_lock_sched_held() - might we be in RCU-sched read-side critical section?
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c
index c2209eb..ea4af81 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/update.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c
@@ -137,6 +137,38 @@ int notrace debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled(void)
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled);
/**
+ * rcu_read_lock_held() - might we be in RCU read-side critical section?
+ *
+ * If CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC is selected, returns nonzero iff in an RCU
+ * read-side critical section. In absence of CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC,
+ * this assumes we are in an RCU read-side critical section unless it can
+ * prove otherwise. This is useful for debug checks in functions that
+ * require that they be called within an RCU read-side critical section.
+ *
+ * Checks debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() to prevent false positives during boot
+ * and while lockdep is disabled.
+ *
+ * Note that rcu_read_lock() and the matching rcu_read_unlock() must
+ * occur in the same context, for example, it is illegal to invoke
+ * rcu_read_unlock() in process context if the matching rcu_read_lock()
+ * was invoked from within an irq handler.
+ *
+ * Note that rcu_read_lock() is disallowed if the CPU is either idle or
+ * offline from an RCU perspective, so check for those as well.
+ */
+int rcu_read_lock_held(void)
+{
+ if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled())
+ return 1;
+ if (!rcu_is_watching())
+ return 0;
+ if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online())
+ return 0;
+ return lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_held);
+
+/**
* rcu_read_lock_bh_held() - might we be in RCU-bh read-side critical section?
*
* Check for bottom half being disabled, which covers both the
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-02 15:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-30 16:18 [PATCH v4 0/2] rcu: uninline rcu_lock_acquire() and rcu_lock_release() Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-30 16:18 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] " Oleg Nesterov
2014-07-01 11:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-01 16:40 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-07-08 22:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-30 16:18 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] rcu: change rcu_dereference_check(c) to check "c" first Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-30 20:24 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] rcu: uninline rcu_lock_acquire() and rcu_lock_release() Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-01 14:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-07-02 15:39 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2014-07-02 18:59 ` [PATCH 0/1] rcu: uninline rcu_read_lock_held() Oleg Nesterov
2014-07-02 18:59 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Oleg Nesterov
2014-07-08 22:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20140702153901.GA9535@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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