On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 13:51 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 04:38:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 11:56 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_DELAY
> > > + udelay(10); /* Make preemption more probable. */
> >
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 04:38:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 11:56 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_DELAY
> > + udelay(10); /* Make preemption more probable. */
> cond_resched(); /* for extra fun? */
The additional f
On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 11:56 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_DELAY
> + udelay(10); /* Make preemption more probable. */
cond_resched(); /* for extra fun? */
> +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_DELAY */
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 09:49:36AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:56:14AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney"
> >
> > There have been some recent bugs that were triggered only when
> > preemptible RCU's __rcu_read_unlock() was preempted just after
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:56:14AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney"
>
> There have been some recent bugs that were triggered only when
> preemptible RCU's __rcu_read_unlock() was preempted just after setting
> ->rcu_read_lock_nesting to INT_MIN, which is a low-probability
From: "Paul E. McKenney"
There have been some recent bugs that were triggered only when
preemptible RCU's __rcu_read_unlock() was preempted just after setting
->rcu_read_lock_nesting to INT_MIN, which is a low-probability event.
Therefore, reproducing those bugs (to say nothing of gaining confide
6 matches
Mail list logo
