On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:42 PM Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
[..]
> > Say that the tracepoint code is buggy and for some reason a
> > call_srcu wasn't done. For example, say the hypothetical bug I'm
> > taking about is in tracepoint_remove_func which called the
> > rcu_assign_pointer, but didn't call re
On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 04:20:41PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
>
> On 05/04/2018 03:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>Yes just one more ;-). I am trying to write a 'probetorture' test inspired
> >>by RCU torture that whacks the tracepoints in various scenarios. One of the
> >>things I want to
On 05/04/2018 03:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
Yes just one more ;-). I am trying to write a 'probetorture' test inspired
by RCU torture that whacks the tracepoints in various scenarios. One of the
things I want to do is verify the RCU callbacks are queued and secondly,
they are executed. Just
On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 08:33:19PM +, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 1:10 PM Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> [...]
> > > >> > Almost. All context switches in an RCU-preempt read-side critical
> section
> > > >> > must be subject to priority boosting. Preemption is one example,
>
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 1:10 PM Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
[...]
> > >> > Almost. All context switches in an RCU-preempt read-side critical
section
> > >> > must be subject to priority boosting. Preemption is one example,
because
> > >> > boosting the priority of the preempted task will make it runn
On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 12:57:19PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 06:34:32PM +, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:42 AM Paul E. McKenney
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> > > > > But preem
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 06:34:32PM +, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:42 AM Paul E. McKenney
>>
>> wrote:
>> [...]
>> > > > > But preemptible RCU *does not* use context-switch as a quiescent
>> state.
>> > > > It do
On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 06:34:32PM +, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:42 AM Paul E. McKenney
>
> wrote:
> [...]
> > > > > But preemptible RCU *does not* use context-switch as a quiescent
> state.
> > > > It doesn't?
> > >
> > > I thought that's what preemptible rcu is about.
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:42 AM Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
[...]
> > > > But preemptible RCU *does not* use context-switch as a quiescent
state.
> > > It doesn't?
> >
> > I thought that's what preemptible rcu is about. You can get preempted
but
> > you shouldn't block in a read-section. Is that not t
> On Fri, 04 May 2018 16:20:11 +
> > Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
> > > Hi Paul, everyone,
> > >
> > > I had some question(s) about rcu-bh design.
> > > I am trying to understand the reasoning or need of it. I see that rcu-bh
> > > will di
On Fri, 4 May 2018 10:32:06 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> > > But preemptible RCU *does not* use context-switch as a quiescent state.
> >
> > It doesn't?
>
> It does, but only sort of.
Ah, my confusion. I was thinking of rcu_read_lock_sched() as
"preemptible RCU", not the "we can preem
On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 12:30:50PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 04 May 2018 16:20:11 +
> Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
> > Hi Paul, everyone,
> >
> > I had some question(s) about rcu-bh design.
> > I am trying to understand the reasoning or need of it. I
gt; >
> > I had some question(s) about rcu-bh design.
> > I am trying to understand the reasoning or need of it. I see that rcu-bh
> > will disable softirqs across read-side sections. But I am wondering why
> > this is needed. __do_softirq already disables softirq when
On Fri, 04 May 2018 16:20:11 +
Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Paul, everyone,
>
> I had some question(s) about rcu-bh design.
> I am trying to understand the reasoning or need of it. I see that rcu-bh
> will disable softirqs across read-side sections. But I am wondering why
&
Hi Paul, everyone,
I had some question(s) about rcu-bh design.
I am trying to understand the reasoning or need of it. I see that rcu-bh
will disable softirqs across read-side sections. But I am wondering why
this is needed. __do_softirq already disables softirq when a softirq
handler is running
15 matches
Mail list logo
