[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D4AEA99.1040001@am.sony.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 09:49:13 -0800
From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 11/18] sched: Add p->pi_lock to task_rq_lock()
On 02/03/11 09:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 16:21 -0800, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 01/04/11 06:59, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
< snip >
>>> @@ -2646,9 +2647,9 @@ void sched_fork(struct task_struct *p, i
>>> *
>>> * Silence PROVE_RCU.
>>> */
>>> - rcu_read_lock();
>>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, flags);
>>> set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
>>> - rcu_read_unlock();
>>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->pi_lock, flags);
>>
>> Does "* Silence PROVE_RCU." no longer apply after remove rcu_read_lock() and
>> rcu_read_unlock()?
>
> I think the locking is still strictly superfluous, I can't seem to
> recollect why I changed it from RCU to pi_lock, but since the task is
> fresh and unhashed it really cannot be subject to concurrency.
Sorry, my comment was not very clear. I meant to ask: should the
comment "* Silence PROVE_RCU." also be removed?
-Frank
--
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