On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 05:05:53PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 22:55:11 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 01:51:50PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:27:00PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 01:17:33PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > This code isn't running in idle context is it? If so, RCU will
> > > > > happily
> > > > > free out from under it. CONFIG_PROVE_RCU should detect this sort of
> > > > > thing,
> > > > > though.
> > > >
> > > > Well, interrupts/NMIs can happen when idle, but the interrupt/NMI
> > > > entry code deals with the idle state AFAIK.
> > >
> > > Yep, rcu_irq_enter() and rcu_nmi_enter() deal with that. More worried
> > > about this being code invoked from some energy-efficiency driver or
> > > another within the idle loop.
> >
> > Right, so any tracepoint can end up there; but I thought there was
> > already the rule that tracepoints needed RCU enabled.
>
> There is and we have special tracepoint caller for those cases we want a
> tracepoint out of RCU scope. These will reactivate rcu in the
> tracepoint code.
>
> trace_<tp_name>_rcuidle(...)
OK, I finally looked at the emails leading up to this in the thread...
I believe that I am doing premature debugging.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
