On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 8:24 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT, got it. It would be OK for RCU to use
> preempt_count() for some debugging or specialty kernel, but not across
> the board.
Right - that was what I thought you were asking originally.
I don't think a driver or
* Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 7:14 AM Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > Please pull the latest core/rcu git tree from:
> >
> >git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git
> > core-rcu-2020-10-12
>
> I've pulled everything but that last merge and the
On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 02:39:56PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 7:14 AM Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > Please pull the latest core/rcu git tree from:
> >
> >git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git
> > core-rcu-2020-10-12
>
> I've pulled everything but
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 7:14 AM Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Please pull the latest core/rcu git tree from:
>
>git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git
> core-rcu-2020-10-12
I've pulled everything but that last merge and the PREEMPT_COUNT stuff
that came with it.
When Paul asked
Linus,
On Mon, Oct 12 2020 at 13:25, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I don't absolutely hate that code, and I'm willing to be convinced
> about how little it matter for people who don't want to have the
> counting overhead, but I refuse to pull it as some secret hidden thing
> that isn't even mentioned
* Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 7:14 AM Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > Please pull the latest core/rcu git tree from:
> >
> > RCU changes for v5.10:
> >
> > - Debugging for smp_call_function()
> > - RT raw/non-raw lock ordering fixes
> > - Strict grace periods for KASAN
> >
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 05:14:42PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 4:54 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > In CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y kernels, RCU has no way to tell whether or
> > not its caller holds a raw spinlock, which some callers do.
>
> Only kfree_rcu()? (And
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 4:54 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> In CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y kernels, RCU has no way to tell whether or
> not its caller holds a raw spinlock, which some callers do.
Only kfree_rcu()? (And apparently eventually call_rcu())?
And since we have lockdep, and it warns about
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 02:59:41PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 2:44 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > So that RCU can tell, even in CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y kernels, whether it
> > is safe to invoke the memory allocator.
>
> So in what situation is RCU called from random
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 2:44 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> So that RCU can tell, even in CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y kernels, whether it
> is safe to invoke the memory allocator.
So in what situation is RCU called from random contexts that it can't even tell?
> But either way, please let me know how
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 01:25:09PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 7:14 AM Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > Please pull the latest core/rcu git tree from:
> >
> > RCU changes for v5.10:
> >
> > - Debugging for smp_call_function()
> > - RT raw/non-raw lock ordering fixes
> > -
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 7:14 AM Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Please pull the latest core/rcu git tree from:
>
> RCU changes for v5.10:
>
> - Debugging for smp_call_function()
> - RT raw/non-raw lock ordering fixes
> - Strict grace periods for KASAN
> - New smp_call_function() torture test
> -
Linus,
Please pull the latest core/rcu git tree from:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git core-rcu-2020-10-12
# HEAD: c6de896fa0a4546c799c86513d99bd011b4a6177 Merge branch 'rcu/fix-rt'
of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu into core/rcu
13 matches
Mail list logo
