From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: shemminger@vyatta.com, mroos@linux.ee,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: suspicious RCU usage warnings in 3.3.0
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:08:43 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120411.210843.716144028821174908.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120412004507.GF2473@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:45:07 -0700
> If I am confused about the simple function call, and if control is really
> passing via an interrupt or exception, then rcu_irq_enter() should be
> called on entry to the interrupt or exception and rcu_irq_exit() should
> be called on exit.
Hmm, it seems the convention changed such that platforms aren't
supposed to invoke do_softirq() from their trap return trap any more.
It's handled completely by irq_exit().
When did that start happening? :-)
Anyways I bet that's the problem, sparc64 invokes do_softirq() in it's
trap return path if softirqs are pending, and that doesn't do any
of the RCU frobbing you mention.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-12 1:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-28 8:45 suspicious RCU usage warnings in 3.3.0 Meelis Roos
2012-03-28 21:45 ` David Miller
2012-04-11 15:08 ` Meelis Roos
2012-04-11 23:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-12 0:10 ` Stephen Hemminger
2012-04-12 0:18 ` David Miller
2012-04-12 0:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-12 1:03 ` David Miller
2012-04-12 1:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-12 1:08 ` David Miller [this message]
2012-04-12 4:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-13 11:55 ` mroos
2012-04-13 13:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-13 14:55 ` David Miller
2012-04-13 16:30 ` 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=20120411.210843.716144028821174908.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mroos@linux.ee \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=shemminger@vyatta.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).