Commit-ID: 4de1a293a08bdf8ec1530e02163930ac86f80ea2
Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/4de1a293a08bdf8ec1530e02163930ac86f80ea2
Author: Lance Roy
AuthorDate: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 22:38:57 -0700
Committer: Thomas Gleixner
CommitDate: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:19:28 +0200
futex: Replace
sn_sal_console_write() used spin_is_locked() + spin_lock() to get
achieve the same thing as a spin_trylock(), so simplify it by using that
instead. This is also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
Signed-off-by: Lance Roy
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: Jiri Slaby
Cc:
---
drivers
On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 11:00:51AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:38:47PM -0700, Lance Roy wrote:
> > lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
> > since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
>
lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
Signed-off-by: Lance Roy
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Bor
lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
Signed-off-by: Lance Roy
Cc: Alexander Viro
Cc:
---
fs/userfaultfd.c | 2 +-
1 file chang
One of the main uses of spin_is_locked() is to require that a lock is held when
a function is called, for debugging, but lockdep_assert_held() is better for
this purpose since it won't make a mistake when someone else is holding the
lock. This patch series replaces all of this kind of use of spin_i
lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
Signed-off-by: Lance Roy
Cc: Daniel Drake
Cc: Ulrich Kunitz
Cc: Kalle Valo
Cc: &qu
lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
Signed-off-by: Lance Roy
Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso
Cc: Jozsef Kadlecsik
Cc: Florian Westpha
lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
Signed-off-by: Lance Roy
Cc: Jeff Kirsher
Cc: "David S. Miller"
lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
Signed-off-by: Lance Roy
Cc: Cliff Whickman
Cc: Robin Holt
Cc: Arnd Bergmann
Cc: Greg
lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
Signed-off-by: Lance Roy
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Will Deacon
---
k
lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
Signed-off-by: Lance Roy
Cc: Steve Glendinning
Cc: "David S. Miller"
Cc:
-
lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
Signed-off-by: Lance Roy
Cc: "K. Y. Srinivasan"
Cc: Haiyang Zhang
Cc: Stephe
lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
Signed-off-by: Lance Roy
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: D
lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
Signed-off-by: Lance Roy
Cc: Andrew Morton
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov"
Cc: Yang S
lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
Signed-off-by: Lance Roy
Cc: John Johansen
Cc: James Morris
Cc: "Serge E. H
Acked-by: Lance Roy
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 10:17:11 -0700
priyalee.kushw...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Priyalee Kushwaha
>
> Most OS distribution have awk in /usr/bin not in /bin
> Without this patch, kernel-devsrc fails to build as
> runtime dependency for srcu-cbmc script /bin/awk
This is fine with me. I didn't notice that /bin/awk was just a symlink on the
distro I was using when I wrote the script.
Thanks,
Lance
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:50:42 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:17:11AM -0700, priyalee.kushw...@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Priyalee
I am not sure how the rcu_scheduler_active changes in __synchronize_srcu work,
but there seem to be a few problems in them. First,
"if (done && likely(!driving))" on line 453 doesn't appear to ever happen,
as driving doesn't get set to false when srcu_reschedule is called. This seems
like it could
Could you please use the new patch? The remark about ULONG_MAX - NR_CPUS is
incorrect in this one.
Thanks,
Lance
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 14:00:26 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> From: Lance Roy
>
> SRCU uses two per-cpu counters: a nesting counter to count the number o
arrier should
be necessary.
Thanks,
Lance
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 16:54:42 -0800
From: Lance Roy
To: "Paul E. McKenney"
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mi...@kernel.org, jiangshan...@gmail.com,
dipan...@in.ibm.com, a...@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoy...@ef
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:42:52 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:35:18PM -0800, Lance Roy wrote:
> > SRCU uses two per-cpu counters: a nesting counter to count the number of
> > active critical sections, and a sequence counter to ensure that
y: Mathieu Desnoyers
Signed-off-by: Lance Roy
Cc: Paul E. McKenney
Cc: Lai Jiangshan
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
---
include/linux/srcu.h| 10 ++--
kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c | 19 +++-
kernel/rcu/srcu.c | 122 +---
3 files changed, 66 inserti
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:35:08 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:17:25PM -0800, Lance Roy wrote:
> > SRCU uses two per-cpu counters: a nesting counter to count the number of
> > active critical sections, and a sequence counter to ensure that
ggested-by: Mathieu Desnoyers
Signed-off-by: Lance Roy
---
include/linux/srcu.h| 4 +-
kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c | 20 -
kernel/rcu/srcu.c | 116 ++--
3 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/srcu.h
Here is a more recent version of the patch. It has more accurate comments.
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:12:07 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:38:29AM -0800, Lance Roy wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 14:42:34 -0800
> > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -413,6 +415,8 @@ static void __
riod and
> the code following the synchronize_srcu(). Similarly, there can be a
> lack of ordering between the end of the SRCU grace period and callback
> invocation.
>
> This commit adds the necessary ordering.
>
> Reported-by: Lance Roy
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKen
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 15:13:45 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 12:33:00PM -0800, Lance Roy wrote:
> > The trouble is that disabling preemption is not enough to ensure that there
> > is at most one srcu_read_lock() call per CPU that missed the src
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 06:08:45 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> However, let's first take a look at the overflow issue.
>
> If a given program could have ULONG_MAX or more readers at any given
> time, there would of course be overflow. However, each read must have
> an srcu_read_lock() outstandin
ggested-by: Mathieu Desnoyers
Signed-off-by: Lance Roy
---
include/linux/srcu.h| 4 +-
kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c | 20 -
kernel/rcu/srcu.c | 116 ++--
3 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/srcu.h
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:07:02 +0800
Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > After reading the comment for a while, I actually got a question, maybe
> > I miss something ;-)
> >
> > Why "at most NR_CPUS worth of readers using the old index haven't
> > increme
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 21:58:34 +0800
Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> from the changelog, it sounds like that "ULONG_MAX - NR_CPUS" is the limit
> of the implements(old or this one). but actually the real max number of
> active readers is much smaller, I think ULONG_MAX/4 can be used here instead
> and that p
33 matches
Mail list logo
