[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180711151751.GI2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 17:17:51 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
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>,
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 Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 09:06:49AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:56:47 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> Good catch!
>
> release_probes()
> call_rcu_sched()
> ---> rcu_free_old_probes() queued
>
> tracepoint_synchronize_unregister()
> synchronize_srcu(&tracepoint_srcu);
> < finishes right away >
> synchronize_sched()
> --> rcu_free_old_probes()
> --> srcu_free_old_probes() queued
>
> Here tracepoint_synchronize_unregister() returned before the srcu
> portion ran.
I just read the comment that goes with that function; the order doesn't
matter. All we want to ensure is that the unregistration is visible to
either sched or srcu tracepoint users.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists