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 S1751288AbcBLFNa (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:13:30 -0500
Received: from mail-lb0-f182.google.com ([209.85.217.182]:36140 "EHLO
	mail-lb0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750707AbcBLFN2 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:13:28 -0500
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:11:35 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Kyle McMartin <kyle@kernel.org>,
        Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>,
        Calvin Owens <calvinowens@fb.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 4/4] printk: set may_schedule for some of
 console_trylock callers
Message-ID: <20160212051135.GA570@swordfish>
References: <1453536913-9545-1-git-send-email-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <1453536913-9545-5-git-send-email-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <20160211144105.GM3305@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20160211150217.GA527@swordfish>
 <20160211161000.GN3305@pathway.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160211161000.GN3305@pathway.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On (02/11/16 17:10), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> > well, I believe it's ok. __rcu_read_lock() for CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> > does current->rcu_read_lock_nesting++, so rcu_preempt_depth() works
> > as expected. otherwise, for !CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU kernel,
> > __rcu_read_lock() does
> > 
> > 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT))
> > 		preempt_disable()
> > 
> > 
> > - if we run "CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU" then rcu_preempt_depth()
> >   works here.
> > 
> > - if we run "!CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU && CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT"
> >   then preemptible() works for us
> > 
> > - if we run "!CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU && !CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT"
> >   then preemptible() is always 0.
> 
> I feel convinced. But we should somehow document it. I think how
> to do it effectively. I think that the following text would help
> me if I read it:
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * Safe context for rescheduling is detected only when
> 	 * PREEMPT_COUNT is enabled. preemptible() always returns
> 	 * false otherwise.
> 	 *
> 	 * RCU read sections must be detected separately. They
> 	 * have a separate preemption counter when PREEMPT_RCU
> 	 * is enabled.
> 	 */
> 
> I wanted to highlight why exactly the check returns 0 in !PREEMPT_COUNT
> kernel. I missed this a bit in you original comment. But feel free
> to change it as you like.

good point. thanks! will re-spin the patch set later today,
have no reliable internet connection at the moment.

	-ss