On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 06:24:58PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> After patch 10f39bb1, "special & RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED" can't be true
> in irq nor softirq.(due to RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED can only be set
> when preemption)
>
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <la...@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> kernel/rcutree_plugin.h | 6 ------
> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> index 8fd947e..54f7e45 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> @@ -361,12 +361,6 @@ void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
> rcu_preempt_qs(smp_processor_id());
> }
>
> - /* Hardware IRQ handlers cannot block. */
> - if (in_irq() || in_serving_softirq()) {
> - local_irq_restore(flags);
> - return;
> - }
> -
Good point, it is time to relax the redundant checking. Paranoid that
I am, I took an intermediate position, wrapping a WARN_ON_ONCE() around
the check as follows:
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(in_irq() || in_serving_softirq())) {
local_irq_restore(flags);
return;
}
If this warning never triggers over a period of some time, we can remove
it entirely.
I have queued this for 3.14 with your Signed-off-by. Please let me know
if you have any objections.
Thanx, Paul
> /* Clean up if blocked during RCU read-side critical section. */
> if (special & RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED) {
> t->rcu_read_unlock_special &= ~RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED;
> --
> 1.7.4.4
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
