[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1338332687.26856.189.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 01:04:47 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] uprobes: kill uprobes_srcu/uprobe_srcu_id
On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 21:30 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Kill the no longer needed uprobes_srcu/uprobe_srcu_id code.
>
> It doesn't really work anyway. synchronize_srcu() can only synchronize
> with the code "inside" the srcu_read_lock/srcu_read_unlock section,
> while uprobe_pre_sstep_notifier() does srcu_read_lock() _after_ we
> already hit the breakpoint.
>
> I guess this probably works "in practice". synchronize_srcu() is slow
> and it implies synchronize_sched(), and the probed task enters the non-
> preemptible section at the start of exception handler. Still this is not
> right at least in theory, and task->uprobe_srcu_id blows task_struct.
This kills the only user of srcu_read_{,un}lock_raw(), so I guess we
could also make:
9ceae0e2
101db7b4
0c53dd8b
go away..
--
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