[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140113185238.GB14125@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:52:38 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] lockdep: Kill held_lock->check and "int check" arg
of __lock_acquire()
On 01/13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 06:06:09PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > And I just realized that rcu_lock_acquire() does lock_acquire(check => 1).
> > Probably we can mark rcu_lock_map's as __lockdep_no_validate__.
>
> Can't, RCU needs its own classes. Otherwise it cannot tell which version
> of the RCU read lock its holding at just that moment.
Ah, indeed. Thanks.
Can't it do lock_acquire(trylock => 1, read => 2) ? this still means
mark_irqflags(), but perhaps this won't hurt too much.
> At the very least we can reduce check to a single bit.
Or this, yes.
Oleg.
--
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