[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140923142037.GG3312@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:20:37 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] signal: simplify deadlock-avoidance in
lock_task_sighand()
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 07:45:22AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > I really thing the preempt_disable/enable is not needed.
> >
> > Paul, Thomas, care to comment?
>
> I suspect you are right. On normal kernels, rcu_read_lock() will
> ensure preemption is disabled.
>
> On -rt, the locks within are all sleepable mutexes.
>
> Either way, things should be ok.
But with CONFIG_PREEMPT we get preemptible RCU but not the
spinlock->rt_mutex conversion.
--
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