[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1314208261.6925.51.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:51:00 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>, ying.huang@...el.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, jason.wessel@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] x86, nmi: create new NMI handler routines
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 13:44 -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > + a = rcu_dereference_raw(*ap);
> >
> > The reason for rcu_dereference_raw() is to prevent lockdep from choking
> > due to being called from an NMI handler, correct? If so, please add a
> > comment to this effect on this and similar uses.
>
> That sounds right. But honestly, I just copied what notifier_call_chain
> had. Regardless, I will make sure to document that in my next version.
> Thanks!
Not quite right, nmi_enter() does lockdep_disable() and makes
lock_is_held() return always true.
I think this (and the other sites) could do with rcu_dereference_check(,
lockdep_is_held(&desc->lock)); not that it wouldn't be anything but
documentation since the actual test isn't working from NMI context but I
do think its worth it for that alone.
--
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