On 2017-10-12 11:24:54 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> So I keep mainline as is, and the local_irq_save()-to-local_lock_irqsave()
> conversion happens in -rt, given that mainline doesn't have a
> local_lock_irqsave(), correct?
yes, that would be nice :)
> And just so you know, there is one pat
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:53:35AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-10-10 14:43:13 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> > index 6d5880089ff6..558f9e7b283e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutr
On 2017-10-10 14:43:13 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> index 6d5880089ff6..558f9e7b283e 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> @@ -830,7 +866,7 @@ void __call_srcu(struct srcu_struct *sp, struct rcu_head
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:40:12PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-10-10 14:43:13 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > OK, internally I could get rid of raw_ at the expense of some code bloat,
> > > but in the call_srcu() case, the caller might well hold a raw_ lock.
> >
> > Ex
On 2017-10-10 14:43:13 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > OK, internally I could get rid of raw_ at the expense of some code bloat,
> > but in the call_srcu() case, the caller might well hold a raw_ lock.
>
> Except that none currently do, so maybe downgrading from raw_ locks is
> a reasonable c
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 06:10:46PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 06:03:57PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2017-09-22 11:46:10 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 05:28:05PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > > On RT w
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 06:03:57PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-09-22 11:46:10 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 05:28:05PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > On RT we can't invoke queue_delayed_work() within an atomic section
> > > (which
On 2017-09-22 11:46:10 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 05:28:05PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On RT we can't invoke queue_delayed_work() within an atomic section
> > (which is provided by raw_spin_lock_irqsave()).
> > srcu_reschedule() invokes queue_delaye
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 05:28:05PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On RT we can't invoke queue_delayed_work() within an atomic section
> (which is provided by raw_spin_lock_irqsave()).
> srcu_reschedule() invokes queue_delayed_work() outside of the
> raw_spin_lock_irq_rcu_node() section s
On RT we can't invoke queue_delayed_work() within an atomic section
(which is provided by raw_spin_lock_irqsave()).
srcu_reschedule() invokes queue_delayed_work() outside of the
raw_spin_lock_irq_rcu_node() section so this should be fine here, too.
If the remaining callers of call_srcu() aren't ato
10 matches
Mail list logo