* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At a minimum i think we need the fix+comment below.
>
> Well if we say "this is actually RCU", then yes. And we should
> probably change the preempt_{dis|en}ables in other places to
> rcu_read_lock.
>
> OTOH, if we say we just want all running threads to process through a
> preemption stage, then this would just be a preempt_disable/enable
> pair.
>
> In practice that makes no difference yet, but it looks like you and
> Paul are working to distinguish these two cases in the RCU code, to
> accomodate your low latency RCU stuff?
it doesnt impact PREEMPT_RCU/PREEMPT_RT directly, because the scheduler
itself always needs to be non-preemptible.
those few places where we currently do preempt_disable(), which should
thus be rcu_read_lock(), are never in codepaths that can take alot of
time.
but yes, in principle you are right, but in this particular (and
special) case it's not a big issue. We should document the RCU read-lock
dependencies cleanly and make all rcu-read-lock cases truly
rcu_read_lock(), but it's not a pressing issue even considering possible
future features like PREEMPT_RT.
the only danger in this area is to PREEMPT_RT: it is a bug on PREEMPT_RT
if kernel code has an implicit 'spinlock means preempt-off and thus
RCU-read-lock' assumption. Most of the time these get discovered via
PREEMPT_DEBUG. (preempt_disable() disables preemption on PREEMPT_RT too,
so that is not a problem either.)
Ingo
-
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/
