[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120731151808.GF2422@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:18:09 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: __update_max_tr: rcu_read_lock() used illegally while idle!
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 10:56:23AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 10:51 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > > OK, I will bite. How about using something like RCU_NONIDLE(), either
> > > directly or open-coded, to make it a legal call site?
> >
> > OK, then something like:
> >
> > RCU_NONIDLE(max_data = task_uid(tsk));
> >
> > would work when called normally or with idle?
> >
>
> The comment above RCU_NONIDLE() says:
>
> This macro may be used from process-level code only.
>
> Although I'm not sure what a 'level' is. Do you mean process-context? If
> so, then this will not work because it can be called from non process
> level code (return from interrupt), or any interrupt that enables
> interrupts.
Yep, process context. It seems that I was naively expecting the
calls in interrupt context to be covered by rcu_irq_enter() and
rcu_irq_exit(). I take it that these calls are happening outside of
the rcu_irq_enter()-protected region?
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