[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110607125809.GA23214@somewhere>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 14:58:13 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [1/4] rcu: Detect uses of rcu read side in extended quiescent
states
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 09:40:05PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:>
> The bit I am missing is how to distinguish between spinlocks (where
> sleeping is illegal) and mutexes (where sleeping is perfectly fine).
> We could teach lockdep the difference, I suppose, but it is not clear
> to me that it is worth it.
Ah, in fact it doesn't pass through any lockdep check.
It's only a function called might_sleep() that is placed in functions
that can sleep. And inside might_sleep() it checks whether it is in a preemptible
area. So it's actually locking-agnostic, it only relies on the preempt_count
and some more for the preempt rcu cases.
I think it is called CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP because it was first used
for spinlock debugging purposes. But then it has a broader use now: sleep
inside preemptible section, sleep inside interrupts, sleep inside rcu.
It certainly deserves a rename, like CONFIG_DEBUG_ILLEGAL_SLEEP.
>
> In contrast, with RCU, this is straightforward -- check for rcu_sched
> and rcu_bh, but not SRCU.
>
> 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