On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 04:38:47PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 14:20 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 04:06:02PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 13:53 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > And I have to ask...
> > > >
> > > > Wha
On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 14:20 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 04:06:02PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 13:53 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > And I have to ask...
> > >
> > > What did you do to test this change to kernel/softirq.c? My past
> > > att
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 04:06:02PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 13:53 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 08:19:05PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > > index fb267bc04fdf..aca4e5e25ace 1006
On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 13:53 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 08:19:05PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > index fb267bc04fdf..aca4e5e25ace 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/rcupda
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 08:19:05PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> A plain local_bh_disable() is documented as creating an RCU critical
> section, and (at least) rcutorture expects this to be the case. However,
> in_softirq() doesn't block a grace period on PREEMPT_RT, since RCU checks
> preempt_count(
A plain local_bh_disable() is documented as creating an RCU critical
section, and (at least) rcutorture expects this to be the case. However,
in_softirq() doesn't block a grace period on PREEMPT_RT, since RCU checks
preempt_count() directly. Even if RCU were changed to check
in_softirq(), that wo
6 matches
Mail list logo
