[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1187337405.6114.123.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:56:45 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
123.oleg@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>, josht@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: annotate rcu_read_{,un}lock()
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 09:01 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 04:25:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > There seem to be some unbalanced rcu_read_{,un}lock() issues of late,
> > how about doing something like this:
>
> This will break when rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() are invoked
> from NMI/SMI handlers -- the raw_local_irq_save() in lock_acquire() will
> not mask NMIs or SMIs.
>
> One approach would be to check for being in an NMI/SMI handler, and
> to avoid calling lock_acquire() and lock_release() in those cases.
It seems:
#define nmi_enter() do { lockdep_off(); __irq_enter(); } while (0)
#define nmi_exit() do { __irq_exit(); lockdep_on(); } while (0)
Should make it all work out just fine. (for NMIs at least, /me fully
ignorant of the workings of SMIs)
> Another approach would be to use sparse, which has checks for
> rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() nesting.
Yeah, but one more method can never hurt, no? :-)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists