On 2019-09-17 11:12:48 [-0500], Scott Wood wrote:
> > rcu_read_lock() does:
> > > __rcu_read_lock();
> > > __acquire(RCU);
> > > rcu_lock_acquire(_lock_map);
> > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_is_watching(),
> > > "rcu_read_lock() used illegally
On Tue, 2019-09-17 at 16:42 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-09-17 09:06:28 [-0500], Scott Wood wrote:
> > Sorry, I missed that you were asking about rcu_read_lock_bh() as
> > well. I
> > did remove the change to rcu_read_lock_bh_held().
>
> Sorry for not being clear here.
>
>
On 2019-09-17 09:06:28 [-0500], Scott Wood wrote:
> Sorry, I missed that you were asking about rcu_read_lock_bh() as well. I
> did remove the change to rcu_read_lock_bh_held().
Sorry for not being clear here.
> With this patch, local_bh_disable() calls rcu_read_lock() on RT which
> handles this
On Tue, 2019-09-17 at 09:44 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-09-11 17:57:25 [+0100], Scott Wood wrote:
> >
> > @@ -615,10 +645,7 @@ static inline void rcu_read_unlock(void)
> > static inline void rcu_read_lock_bh(void)
> > {
> > local_bh_disable();
> > -
On 2019-09-11 17:57:25 [+0100], Scott Wood wrote:
> index 388ace315f32..9ce7c5006a5e 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> @@ -600,6 +600,36 @@ static inline void rcu_read_unlock(void)
> rcu_lock_release(_lock_map); /* Keep acq info for rls diags. */
> }
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 05:57:25PM +0100, Scott Wood wrote:
> A plain local_bh_disable() is documented as creating an RCU critical
> section, and (at least) rcutorture expects this to be the case. However,
> in_softirq() doesn't block a grace period on PREEMPT_RT, since RCU checks
>
A plain local_bh_disable() is documented as creating an RCU critical
section, and (at least) rcutorture expects this to be the case. However,
in_softirq() doesn't block a grace period on PREEMPT_RT, since RCU checks
preempt_count() directly. Even if RCU were changed to check
in_softirq(), that
7 matches
Mail list logo
