[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100327224606.GK2343@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:46:06 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, josh@...htriplett.org, dvhltc@...ibm.com,
niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, adobriyan@...il.com
Subject: Re: [patch 0/6] rcu head debugobjects
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 11:32:33AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is an updated version of the rcu head debugobjects, following the comments
> I received in the last rounds.
>
> It applies on top of -tip, based on 2.6.34-rc2, commit
> 2e958f219d2b8d192d44e2472a214b3a93c44673
>
> Unless people have any objection, it should be ready to be merged. I think the
> appropriate maintainer to perform this merge would be Paul E. McKenney, because
> this patchset is RCU-related.
This should be very helpful in tracking down otherwise-painful bugs!!!
Thank you, Mathieu!!! I am happy to apply this, especially given Dave
Miller's Acked-by.
A few questions and comments:
o Patches 1/6, 2/6, 3/6: Was the intent for the three Subject
lines to read as follows?
[patch 1/6] Revert "net: remove INIT_RCU_HEAD() usage"
[patch 2/6] Revert "netfilter: don't use INIT_RCU_HEAD()"
[patch 3/6] Revert "net: don't use INIT_RCU_HEAD"
o Patch 4/6 looks good to me, and given that Thomas hasn't
complained, I am guessing that he is OK with it.
o Would it be possible to make this bisectable as follows?
a. Insert a new patch after current patch 4/6 that
defines destroy_rcu_head_on_stack(),
rcu_head_init_on_stack(), and rcu_head_init() with
their !CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD definitions.
b. Move current patch 6/6 to this position.
c. Move current patch 5/6 to this position, updating
to reflect the new patch added in (a) above.
o Patch 6/6: Would it be possible to use the object_is_on_stack()
function defined in include/linux/sched.h instead of passing
in the flag on_stack to bdi_work_init()? It looks like
fs/fs-writeback.c already includes include/linux/sched.h, so
shouldn't be a problem from a #include-hell viewpoint.
Please let me know if I am missing something on any of the above. If
these changes seem reasonable to you, please either submit a new patch
set or let me know that you are OK with me making these changes.
Thanx, Paul
--
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