Re: [RFC][PATCH 11/18] sched: Add p->pi_lock to task_rq_lock()

[Frank Rowand]

On 02/03/11 09:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 16:21 -0800, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 01/04/11 06:59, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

< snip >

>>> @@ -2646,9 +2647,9 @@ void sched_fork(struct task_struct *p, i
>>>          *
>>>          * Silence PROVE_RCU.
>>>          */
>>> -       rcu_read_lock();
>>> +       raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, flags);
>>>         set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
>>> -       rcu_read_unlock();
>>> +       raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->pi_lock, flags);
>>
>> Does "* Silence PROVE_RCU." no longer apply after remove rcu_read_lock() and
>> rcu_read_unlock()?
> 
> I think the locking is still strictly superfluous, I can't seem to
> recollect why I changed it from RCU to pi_lock, but since the task is
> fresh and unhashed it really cannot be subject to concurrency.

Sorry, my comment was not very clear.  I meant to ask: should the
comment "* Silence PROVE_RCU." also be removed?

-Frank
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/