[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608301918260.6761@scrub.home>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:25:07 +0200 (CEST)
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>
cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>, devel@...nvz.org,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...l.ru>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] introduce atomic_dec_and_lock_irqsave()
Hi,
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> > > uidhash_lock can be taken from irq context. For example, delayed_put_task_struct()
> > > does __put_task_struct()->free_uid().
> >
> > AFAICT it's called via rcu, does that mean anything released via rcu has
> > to be protected against interrupts?
>
> No. You need protection only if you have are using some
> data that can also be used by the RCU callback. For example,
> if your RCU callback just calls kfree(), you don't have to
> do a spin_lock_bh().
In this case kfree() does its own interrupt synchronization. I didn't
realize before that rcu had this (IMO serious) limitation. I think there
should be two call_rcu() variants, one that queues the callback in a soft
irq and a second which queues it in a thread context.
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists