[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240216180559.208276-3-tj@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 08:04:43 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: jiangshanlai@...il.com
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
allen.lkml@...il.com,
kernel-team@...a.com,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 02/17] workqueue: Use rcu_read_lock_any_held() instead of rcu_read_lock_held()
The different flavors of RCU read critical sections have been unified. Let's
update the locking assertion macros accordingly to avoid requiring
unnecessary explicit rcu_read_[un]lock() calls.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
---
kernel/workqueue.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index b280caf81fb2..87750e70b638 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -515,12 +515,12 @@ static void show_one_worker_pool(struct worker_pool *pool);
#include <trace/events/workqueue.h>
#define assert_rcu_or_pool_mutex() \
- RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_held() && \
+ RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_any_held() && \
!lockdep_is_held(&wq_pool_mutex), \
"RCU or wq_pool_mutex should be held")
#define assert_rcu_or_wq_mutex_or_pool_mutex(wq) \
- RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_held() && \
+ RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_any_held() && \
!lockdep_is_held(&wq->mutex) && \
!lockdep_is_held(&wq_pool_mutex), \
"RCU, wq->mutex or wq_pool_mutex should be held")
--
2.43.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists