Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 24/28] rcu: Introduce bulk referencecount

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 19:35 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 10:31 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >   local_irq_save(flags);
> > >   srcu_read_lock(&my_srcu_domain);
> > >   local_irq_restore(flags);
> > > 
> > > and
> > > 
> > >   local_irq_save(flags);
> > >   srcu_read_unlock(&my_srcu_domain);
> > >   local_irq_restore(flags)
> > > 
> > > Doesn't look to be too hard, or confusing.
> > 
> > Ah, OK, I was under the mistaken impression that lockdep would splat
> > if you did (for example) srcu_read_lock() in an exception handler and
> > srcu_read_unlock() in the context of the task that took the exception. 
> 
> I don't think it will, lockdep does very little actual validation on the
> RCU locks other than recording they're held. But if they do, the planned
> TODO item will get inversed.
> 
> Should be easy enough to test I guess.

OK, so I had me a little peek at lockdep and you're right, it will
complain.

Still uprobes can do:

  local_irq_save(flags);
  __srcu_read_lock(&mr_srcu_domain);
  local_irq_restore(flags);

However if you object to exposing the __srcu functions (which I can
understand) you could expose these two functions as
srcu_read_{,un}lock_raw() or so, to mirror the non-validation also found
in rcu_dereference_raw()


--
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/