[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1347000873.18408.69.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:54:33 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: 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, fweisbec@...il.com,
sbw@....edu, patches@...aro.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/15] rcu: Add PROVE_RCU_DELAY to provoke
difficult races
On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 13:51 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 04:38:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 11:56 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_DELAY
> > > + udelay(10); /* Make preemption more probable. */
> > cond_resched(); /* for extra fun? */
>
> The additional fun could include "scheduling while atomic", so I will
> pass. ;-)
>
> (The problem is that __rcu_read_unlock() can be called with interrupts
> disabled, among other things.)
Hmm, too bad. Without a preemption point here you're relying on forced
preemption, which of course can only happen on PREEMPT=y kernels.
> > > +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_DELAY */
> >
> >
>
--
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