[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1185810528.2636.17.camel@imap.mvista.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:48:48 -0700
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -rt 1/9] preempt rcu: check for underflow
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 11:22 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com> wrote:
>
> > + /*
> > + * If our rcu_read_lock_nesting went negative, likely
> > + * something is wrong..
> > + */
> > + WARN_ON(current->rcu_read_lock_nesting < 0);
>
> have you actually caught any rcu locking problem this way? Double
> unlocks should be caught by lockdep already, at a higher level.
>
> in any case i've added a slightly different form of this change to the
> -rt queue that will also check for counter overflows. But i'm not sure
> we want to litter the code with trivial checks like this, so i'm keeping
> it separate and if it does not trigger anything real i'll remove it.
I haven't caught anything with it, but this code would have made it much
easier to catch the single rcu unlock in sys_sched_yield() which was
silent in PREEMPT_RT, and hung !PREEMPT_RT ..
It's fine with me, if you have another method.
Daniel
-
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