[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100329133933.GA23238@Krystal>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:39:33 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.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
Hi Paul,
Thinking about the rcu head init topic, we might be able to drop the
init_rcu_head() initializer. The idea is the following:
- We need init_rcu_head_on_stack()/destroy_rcu_head_on_stack().
- call_rcu() populates the rcu_head and normally does not care about it being
pre-initialized.
- The activation fixup can detect if a non-initialized rcu head is being
activated and just perform the fixup without complaining.
- If we have two call_rcu() in a row in the same GP on the same rcu_head, the
activation check will detect it.
So either we remove all the init_rcu_head(), as was originally proposed, or we
use one that is a no-op on !DEBUG configs and initialize the object with DEBUG
configs.
That removes the dependency on object_is_static().
Thoughts ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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