Re: [PATCH v3 tip/core/rcu 3/9] rcu: Add synchronous grace-period waiting for RCU-tasks

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 15:49:07 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


> Only voluntary calls to schedule() will be a quiescent state. Preempt
> doesn't count. And no, function callbacks to not call schedule(),
> function callbacks should be treated even stricter than interrupt
> handlers. They should never call schedule() directly or even take any
> locks. Heck, they should be stricter than NMIs for that matter.
> 
> Hence, once something calls schedule() directly, we know that it is not
> on a trampoline, nor is it going to return to one.

I should also be a bit clearer here. It's not just function callbacks,
but anything that adds a trampoline that can be called from any context
(like for kprobes). The point is, these trampolines that can execute
anywhere (including in NMIs), must have strict use cases. These are not
a notifier or other generic operation that normal RCU is fine for.
These are for really specific cases that require the call_rcu_task() to
free.

call_rcu_task() should seldom be used. The only cases really are for
kprobes and function tracing, and perhaps other dynamic callers.

-- Steve
--
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/