[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111205100346.GA28750@zhy>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 18:03:46 +0800
From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org,
niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 7/7] rcu: Quiet RCU-lockdep warnings
involving interrupt disabling
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 10:41:36AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 10:34 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
> >
> > RCU-lockdep will issue warnings given the following use pattern:
> >
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > local_irq_disable();
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > local_irq_enable();
> >
> > However, this use pattern is legal except for the scheduler's runqueue
> > and priority-inheritance locks (and any other locks that the scheduler
> > might use during priority-inheritance operations).
>
> So what does this patch do? Make it not complain when you do the above?
It suppose to not complain but it bring other complain :(
> How often does this pattern actually happen?
IIRC, we have just one which is cured by commit [a841796: signal: align
__lock_task_sighand() irq disabling and RCU]
> Can't be that often
> otherwise we'd have had more complaints, no?
Yeah,
So that also means we don't dedicated lock_class_key for mtx.wait_lock.
Thanks,
Yong
--
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