On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 03:40:40PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:46:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:06:31PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 09:45:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 201
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:46:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:06:31PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 09:45:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:10:51AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 201
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:06:31PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 09:45:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:10:51AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:11:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 09:45:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:10:51AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:11:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:43:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > > +int rcu_rea
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:10:51AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:11:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:43:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > +int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void)
> > > +{
> > > + int lockdep_opinion = 0;
> > > +
>
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:10:51AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Agreed, I will do it this way (without the debug_locks) like:
>
> ---8<---
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> index ba861d1716d3..339aebc330db 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c
> +++ b
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:11:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:43:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > +int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void)
> > +{
> > + int lockdep_opinion = 0;
> > +
> > + if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled())
> > + return 1;
> > +
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:01:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:43:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > This patch adds support for checking RCU reader sections in list
> > traversal macros. Optionally, if the list macro is called under SRCU or
> > other lock/
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 02:12:00PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/11, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> >
> > +int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void)
>
> rcu_sync_is_idle() wants it. You have my ack in advance ;)
Cool, thanks ;)
- Joel
On 07/11, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>
> +int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void)
rcu_sync_is_idle() wants it. You have my ack in advance ;)
Oleg.
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:43:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> +int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void)
> +{
> + int lockdep_opinion = 0;
> +
> + if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled())
> + return 1;
> + if (!rcu_is_watching())
> + return 0;
> + if (!rcu_lockd
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:43:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> This patch adds support for checking RCU reader sections in list
> traversal macros. Optionally, if the list macro is called under SRCU or
> other lock/mutex protection, then appropriate lockdep expressions can be
> passed t
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:43:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> This patch adds support for checking RCU reader sections in list
> traversal macros. Optionally, if the list macro is called under SRCU or
> other lock/mutex protection, then appropriate lockdep expressions can be
> passed t
This patch adds support for checking RCU reader sections in list
traversal macros. Optionally, if the list macro is called under SRCU or
other lock/mutex protection, then appropriate lockdep expressions can be
passed to make the checks pass.
Existing list_for_each_entry_rcu() invocations don't nee
14 matches
Mail list logo
