From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S964832AbbJIIpJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 9 Oct 2015 04:45:09 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:44770 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S934177AbbJIIpE (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 9 Oct 2015 04:45:04 -0400
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:44:50 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
        dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
        edumazet@google.com, dvhart@linux.intel.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
        oleg@redhat.com, bobby.prani@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/18] rcu: Move rcu_report_exp_rnp() to
 allow consolidation
Message-ID: <20151009084450.GX3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20151006202937.GX3604@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151006205850.GW3910@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20151007075114.GW2881@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151007143325.GF3910@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20151007144024.GI17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151007164858.GQ3910@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20151008094933.GK3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151008153351.GC3910@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20151008171203.GR3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151009001021.GM3910@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151009001021.GM3910@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 05:10:21PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Note that there are rnp->lock acquires without the extra barrier though,
> > so you seem somewhat inconsistent with your own rule.
> > 
> > See for example:
> > 
> > 	rcu_dump_cpu_stacks()
> > 	print_other_cpu_stall()
> > 	print_cpu_stall()
> > 
> > (did not do an exhaustive scan, there might be more)
> > 
> > and yes, that is 'obvious' debug code and not critical to the correct
> > behaviour of the code, but it is a deviation from 'the rule'.
> 
> How about the following patch on top of yours?

Works for me, Thanks!