[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110407154737.GF2262@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 08:47:37 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] RCU: Add TASK_RCU_OFFSET
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 01:49:51PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 04/07/2011 08:30 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 02:27:39PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> On 04/06/2011 02:06 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 13:13 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>>> And the following patch builds correctly for defconfig x86 builds,
> >>>> while allowing rcupdate.h to see the sched.h definitions as needed
> >>>> to inline rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock().
> >>>>
> >>> Looks like an entirely reasonable patch to me ;-)
> >>>
> >>
> >> Quite... a lot better than the original proposal!
> >
> > Glad you both like it!
> >
> > When I do an allyesconfig build, I do get errors during the "CHECK"
> > phase, when it is putting things into the usr/include in the build tree.
> > I believe that this is because I am exposing different header files to
> > the library-export scripts. The following patch silences some of them,
> > but I am really out of my depth here.
> >
> > Sam, Jan, Michal, help?
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> Easy to split rcupdate.h, hard to resolve the dependence problem.
>
> You can apply the next additional patch when you test:
I am sure that you are quite correct. ;-)
I am moving _rcu_read_lock() and _rcu_read_unlock() into
include/linux/rcutree.h and include/linux/rcutiny.h, and I am sure that
more pain will ensue.
One thing I don't understand... How does is it helping to group the
task_struct RCU-related fields into a structure? Is that generating
better code on your platform due to smaller offsets or something?
Also, does your patchset address the CHECK warnings?
Thanx, Paul
> diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> index 0b4496a..ccbebeb 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> @@ -788,4 +788,10 @@ static inline void debug_rcu_head_unqueue(struct rcu_head *head)
> #error "Unknown RCU implementation specified to kernel configuration"
> #endif
>
> +#include <linux/sched.h>
> +static inline long test_use_task_struct(void)
> +{
> + return current->state;
> +}
> +
> #endif /* __LINUX_RCUPDATE_H */
> --
> 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/
--
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