[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1266142332.5273.415.camel@laptop>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:12:12 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org,
dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
dhowells@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/13] sched: use lockdep-based checking
on rcu_dereference()
On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 16:00 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> + first = rcu_dereference_check(pid->tasks[type].first, rcu_read_lock_held() || lockdep_is_held(&tasklist_lock));
> if (first)
> result = hlist_entry(first, struct task_struct, pids[(type)].node);
> }
I've seen that particular combination a few times in this patch, would
it make sense to create rcu_dereference_task()?
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index c535cc4..ad419d9 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -645,6 +645,11 @@ static inline int cpu_of(struct rq *rq)
> #endif
> }
>
> +#define for_each_domain_rd(p) \
> + rcu_dereference_check((p), \
> + rcu_read_lock_sched_held() || \
> + lockdep_is_held(&sched_domains_mutex))
> +
Would rcu_dereference_rd() not be a better name?
--
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