[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171007151004.GA3874@andrea>
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 17:10:04 +0200
From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
dipankar <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
fweisbec <fweisbec@...il.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
maged michael <maged.michael@...il.com>,
gromer <gromer@...gle.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...lladb.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/3] membarrier: Provide register expedited
private command
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 10:32:19AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > AFAIU the scheduler rq->lock is held while preemption is disabled.
> > synchronize_sched() is used here to ensure that all pre-existing
> > preempt-off critical sections have completed.
> >
> > So saying that we use synchronize_sched() to synchronize with rq->lock
> > would be stretching the truth a bit. It's actually only true because the
> > scheduler holding the rq->lock is surrounded by a preempt-off
> > critical section.
>
> No, rq->lock is sufficient, note that rq->lock is a raw_spinlock_t which
> implies !preempt. Yes, we also surround the rq->lock usage with a
> slightly larger preempt_disable() section but that's not in fact
> required for this.
That's what it is, according to the current sources: we seemed to agree that
a preempt-off critical section is what we rely on here and that the start of
this critical section is not marked by that raw_spin_lock.
Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists