[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151006201915.GV3910@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 13:19:15 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Move preemption disabling out of
__srcu_read_lock()
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 10:07:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:13:42AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Currently, __srcu_read_lock() cannot be invoked from restricted
> > environments because it contains calls to preempt_disable() and
> > preempt_enable(), both of which can invoke lockdep, which is a bad
> > idea in some restricted execution modes. This commit therefore moves
> > the preempt_disable() and preempt_enable() from __srcu_read_lock()
> > to srcu_read_lock(). It also inserts the preempt_disable() and
> > preempt_enable() around the call to __srcu_read_lock() in do_exit().
>
> Did you not simply want to use: preempt_disable_notrace() ?
I believe that tracing the preempt_disable() in srcu_read_lock() and
srcu_read_unlock() is actually a good thing. Or am I missing your
point?
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