[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080104120905.GA15640@in.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:39:05 +0530
From: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
To: Paul E McKenney <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: "K. Prasad" <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
dipankar@...ibm.com,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Subject: __get_cpu_var() called from a preempt-unsafe context in
__rcu_preempt_unboost() ?
Hi Paul, Steve,
This is with reference to the preemptible rcu implementation in
2.6.24-rc5-rt1.
In __rcu_read_unlock(), we call __rcu_preempt_unboost() to unboost a
task's priority which had been bumped up when it was preempted out
while the rcu_read section.
The code path is as follows
__rcu_read_unlock()
|
|--> local_irq_restore(oldirq);
|
|--> __rcu_preempt_unboost();
|
|--> rcu_trace_boost_unboost_called(RCU_BOOST_ME)
where RCU_BOOST_ME is #defined as &__get_cpu_var(rcu_boost_data).
Is calling __get_cpu_var() safe in this context, since we've already
enabled the local interrupts and we're not in a preempt_disabled() ?
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
"Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain,
because Freedom is priceless!"
--
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