[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180711125647.GG2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:56:47 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Julia Cartwright <julia@...com>,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Glexiner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 4/7] tracepoint: Make rcuidle tracepoint callers use
SRCU
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 11:21:46AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> static inline void tracepoint_synchronize_unregister(void)
> {
> + synchronize_srcu(&tracepoint_srcu);
> synchronize_sched();
> }
Given you below do call_rcu_sched() and then call_srcu(), isn't the
above the wrong way around?
Also, does the above want to be barrier instead of synchronize, so as to
guarantee completion of the callbacks.
> +static void srcu_free_old_probes(struct rcu_head *head)
> {
> kfree(container_of(head, struct tp_probes, rcu));
> }
>
> +static void rcu_free_old_probes(struct rcu_head *head)
> +{
> + call_srcu(&tracepoint_srcu, head, srcu_free_old_probes);
> +}
> +
> static inline void release_probes(struct tracepoint_func *old)
> {
> if (old) {
> struct tp_probes *tp_probes = container_of(old,
> struct tp_probes, probes[0]);
> + /*
> + * Tracepoint probes are protected by both sched RCU and SRCU,
> + * by calling the SRCU callback in the sched RCU callback we
> + * cover both cases. So let us chain the SRCU and sched RCU
> + * callbacks to wait for both grace periods.
> + */
> call_rcu_sched(&tp_probes->rcu, rcu_free_old_probes);
> }
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists