[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211007084920.4wo5fmjxmistivqa@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 10:49:20 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] rcu: Make rcu_core() safe in PREEMPT_RT with NOCB
+ a few other fixes
On 2021-10-06 08:13:39 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 12:10:01AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > PREEMPT_RT has made rcu_core() preemptible, making it unsafe against
> > concurrent NOCB (de-)offloading.
> >
> > Thomas suggested to drop the local_lock() based solution and simply
> > check the offloaded state while context looks safe but that's not
> > enough. Here is a bit of rework.
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frederic/linux-dynticks.git
> > rcu/rt
> >
> > HEAD: aac1c58961446c731f2e989bd822ca1fd2659bad
>
> Many of these look quite good, but any chance of getting an official
> Tested-by from someone in the -rt community?
I looked over the series, bootet the series and run a quick rcutorture
and didn't notice anything.
Tested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
> Thanx, Paul
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists