[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190923164059.5hvqttxvh7lxxzas@linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:41:00 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Scott Wood <swood@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT v3 1/5] rcu: Acquire RCU lock when disabling BHs
On 2019-09-17 11:12:48 [-0500], Scott Wood wrote:
> > rcu_read_lock() does:
> > > __rcu_read_lock();
> > > __acquire(RCU);
> > > rcu_lock_acquire(&rcu_lock_map);
> > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_is_watching(),
> > > "rcu_read_lock() used illegally while idle");
> >
> > __acquire() is removed removed by cpp.
> > That RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN is doing the same thing as above and redundant.
> > Am I right to assume that you consider
> > rcu_lock_acquire(&rcu_bh_lock_map);
> >
> > redundant because the only user of that is also checking for
> > rcu_lock_map?
> Yes.
I'm going to drop that hunk. It makes the patch smaller and result more
obvious. If the additional lock annotation (rcu_bh_lock_map) is too much
then we can still remove it later entirely (for RT) but for now I would
like to keep the changes simple and small.
> -Scott
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists