On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 04:36:46PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 19:25 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:40:05PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > 2012/11/29 Li Zhong :
> > > > On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 13:55 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > >> >
On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 19:25 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:40:05PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > 2012/11/29 Li Zhong :
> > > On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 13:55 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > >> > With rcu_user_exit() at the beginning, now rcu_irq_enter() only
> >
On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 19:25 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:40:05PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
2012/11/29 Li Zhong zh...@linux.vnet.ibm.com:
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 13:55 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
With rcu_user_exit() at the beginning, now
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 04:36:46PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 19:25 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:40:05PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
2012/11/29 Li Zhong zh...@linux.vnet.ibm.com:
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 13:55 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:40:05PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 2012/11/29 Li Zhong :
> > On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 13:55 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >> > With rcu_user_exit() at the beginning, now rcu_irq_enter() only protects
> >> > the cpu idle eqs, but it's not good to call
2012/11/29 Gleb Natapov :
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 03:25:07PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> 2012/11/28 Gleb Natapov :
>> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 01:55:42PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> >> Yes but if rcu_irq_*() calls are fine to be called there, and I
>> >> believe they are
2012/11/29 Li Zhong :
> On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 13:55 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> > With rcu_user_exit() at the beginning, now rcu_irq_enter() only protects
>> > the cpu idle eqs, but it's not good to call rcu_irq_exit() after the cpu
>> > halt and the page ready.
>>
>> Hmm, why is it not
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 03:25:07PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 2012/11/28 Gleb Natapov :
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 01:55:42PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >> Yes but if rcu_irq_*() calls are fine to be called there, and I
> >> believe they are because exception_enter() exits the
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 03:25:07PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
2012/11/28 Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 01:55:42PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
Yes but if rcu_irq_*() calls are fine to be called there, and I
believe they are because exception_enter() exits
2012/11/29 Li Zhong zh...@linux.vnet.ibm.com:
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 13:55 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
With rcu_user_exit() at the beginning, now rcu_irq_enter() only protects
the cpu idle eqs, but it's not good to call rcu_irq_exit() after the cpu
halt and the page ready.
Hmm, why
2012/11/29 Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 03:25:07PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
2012/11/28 Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 01:55:42PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
Yes but if rcu_irq_*() calls are fine to be called there, and I
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 03:40:05PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
2012/11/29 Li Zhong zh...@linux.vnet.ibm.com:
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 13:55 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
With rcu_user_exit() at the beginning, now rcu_irq_enter() only protects
the cpu idle eqs, but it's not good to
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 13:55 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 2012/11/28 Li Zhong :
> > Thank you all for the review and education.
> >
> > Below are my current understandings and an update version. Would you
> > please help to review it again and give your comments?
> >
> > Thanks, Zhong
> >
>
2012/11/28 Gleb Natapov :
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 01:55:42PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> Yes but if rcu_irq_*() calls are fine to be called there, and I
>> believe they are because exception_enter() exits the user mode, we
>> should start to protect there right now instead of waiting
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 01:55:42PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > So I still want to remove it. And later if it shows that we really needs
> > rcu somewhere in this code path, maybe we could use RCU_NONIDLE() to
> > protect it. ( The suspicious RCU usage reported in commit
> >
2012/11/28 Li Zhong :
> Thank you all for the review and education.
>
> Below are my current understandings and an update version. Would you
> please help to review it again and give your comments?
>
> Thanks, Zhong
>
> Now it seems to me that it is legal to call rcu_irq_exit/enter() without
> a
Thank you all for the review and education.
Below are my current understandings and an update version. Would you
please help to review it again and give your comments?
Thanks, Zhong
Now it seems to me that it is legal to call rcu_irq_exit/enter() without
a matching rcu_irq_enter/exit() if the
Thank you all for the review and education.
Below are my current understandings and an update version. Would you
please help to review it again and give your comments?
Thanks, Zhong
Now it seems to me that it is legal to call rcu_irq_exit/enter() without
a matching rcu_irq_enter/exit() if the
2012/11/28 Li Zhong zh...@linux.vnet.ibm.com:
Thank you all for the review and education.
Below are my current understandings and an update version. Would you
please help to review it again and give your comments?
Thanks, Zhong
Now it seems to me that it is legal to call
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 01:55:42PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
So I still want to remove it. And later if it shows that we really needs
rcu somewhere in this code path, maybe we could use RCU_NONIDLE() to
protect it. ( The suspicious RCU usage reported in commit
c5e015d4949aa665
2012/11/28 Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 01:55:42PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
Yes but if rcu_irq_*() calls are fine to be called there, and I
believe they are because exception_enter() exits the user mode, we
should start to protect there right now instead of
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 13:55 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
2012/11/28 Li Zhong zh...@linux.vnet.ibm.com:
Thank you all for the review and education.
Below are my current understandings and an update version. Would you
please help to review it again and give your comments?
Thanks,
22 matches
Mail list logo
