From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761439AbXISQ7U (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:59:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757724AbXISQ7N (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:59:13 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.175]:58776 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753143AbXISQ7M (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:59:12 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=EpU65VCm1sM2yItfw76QGKypE3StvnWGqI3p4c/exPw1eO4d+qxFiaIaIPBE6jLUWs2HK3367SI7j0Gbh6Sy4ZDahnE4WCPzeLjZRMubpErs6sCJN+U4PID9hA1gG/T2PQB4ygwJmk0JzLOmzJH3iNE0TXul7cDhvI5zFY2OnaA= Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:59:10 -0400 From: "Dmitry Torokhov" To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock() Cc: "Peter Zijlstra" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Ingo Molnar" , "Andrew Morton" , "Nick Piggin" In-Reply-To: <20070919153750.GB8666@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070919104125.286538000@chello.nl> <20070919105054.332308000@chello.nl> <20070919163111.05c18021@twins> <20070919153750.GB8666@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 9/19/07, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 11:16:21AM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On 9/19/07, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:17:25 -0400 "Dmitry Torokhov" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Peter, > > > > > > > > On 9/19/07, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > Warn when rcu_dereference() is not used in combination with rcu_read_lock() > > > > > > > > > > > > > According to Paul it is fine to use RCU primitives (when accompanied > > > > with proper comments) when the read-size critical section is guarded > > > > by spin_lock_irqsave()/spin_lock_irqsrestore() instead of > > > > rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() and writers synchronize with > > > > synchronize_sched(), not synchronize_rcu(). Your patch will trigger > > > > warnign on such valid usages. > > > > > > > > > > Sounds fragile to begin with. But you're right in that that is valid > > > for Linux as you know it. However in -rt most/all spinlocks are > > > converted to sleeping locks. In that case sync_sched() is not enough. > > > > OK, then it goes beyond RCU... We need to come up with something that > > can be used to synchronize with IRQ handlers (quite often in driver > > code one needs to be sure that current invocation of IRQ handler > > completed before doing something). And once we have it splinlock + RCU > > users can just use that method. > > But Peter's approach would not cause a problem here -- you wouldn't be > doing an rcu_dereference from within the IRQ handler in this case, right? > Yes I do. Along with list_for_each_rcu(). > That said, we will need something to handle threaded interrupts, since > synchronize_sched() only waits for hardirq, NMI, SMI, etc., and not > threaded IRQs. > > Thanx, Paul > -- Dmitry