[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120530015157.GB2357@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 18:51:57 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] uprobes: kill uprobes_srcu/uprobe_srcu_id
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 01:04:47AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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..
If it is still unused in a few months, I will get rid of them.
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