[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140923103053.7da6b7f8@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 10:30:53 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, 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, 23 Sep 2014 16:20:37 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 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.
Right, I was about to say that. That is, rcu_read_lock() in mainline
does not always disable preemption (See CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU).
But I still think this should be safe. I don't see the siglock ever
being taking in the scheduler or by rt_mutex_unlock().
-- Steve
--
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