[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171012085334.slen6jkovswhxbt7@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 10:53:35 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] srcu: queue work without holding the lock
On 2017-10-10 14:43:13 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> index 6d5880089ff6..558f9e7b283e 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> @@ -830,7 +866,7 @@ void __call_srcu(struct srcu_struct *sp, struct rcu_head *rhp,
> rhp->func = func;
> local_irq_save(flags);
> sdp = this_cpu_ptr(sp->sda);
> - raw_spin_lock_rcu_node(sdp);
> + spin_lock_rcu_node(sdp);
This and the same thing in srcu_might_be_idle() does not work because
local_irq_save() + spin_lock() != spin_lock_irqsave()
but
local_irq_save() + raw_spinlock = raw_spin_lock_irqsave()
I think that preempt_disable() for a stable this_cpu_ptr() is enough
here. I replaced local_irq_save() with local_lock_irqsave() on RT which
provides a per-CPU spinlock (for mutual exclusion) and disables
interrupts in !RT mode.
I've been testing this for a while and it seems to work. Thank you.
> rcu_segcblist_enqueue(&sdp->srcu_cblist, rhp, false);
> rcu_segcblist_advance(&sdp->srcu_cblist,
> rcu_seq_current(&sp->srcu_gp_seq));
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists