[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100302141257.GA28917@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:12:57 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 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 RFC tip/core/rcu 1/2] rcu: suppress RCU lockdep warnings
during early boot
* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 01:20:59PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > + if (!rcu_scheduler_active || !debug_locks)
> > > + return 1;
> > > + return lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map);
> >
> > > + if (!rcu_scheduler_active || !debug_locks)
> > > + return 1;
> > > + return lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map);
> >
> > i guess there could be a common helper here?
>
> Will do!
>
> > Also, could we clear rcu_scheduler_active when we clear debug_locks? That way
> > only a single test is needed, a generic 'is lock debugging active'.
>
> Doing that will break synchronize_rcu(), which returns immediately if
> !rcu_scheduler_active.
Ok - then have an debug_rcu flag which is cleared appropriately - so that the
fastpath impact is reduced?
Ingo
--
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