Hello!
This v3 series contains the following fixes:
1. Rename SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU to SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU.
2. Use "WARNING" tag on RCU's lockdep splats.
3. Update obsolete callback_head comment.
4. Make RCU_FANOUT_LEAF help text more explicit about skew_tick.
5. Remov
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 05:43:43PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 08:37:03AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 03:15:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 06:02:45AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 19, 201
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 08:37:03AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 03:15:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 06:02:45AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:28:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So the thi
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 03:15:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 06:02:45AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:28:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > So the thing Maz complained about is because KVM assumes
> > > synchronize_srcu() is '
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 05:03:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 07:58:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >
> > Still something to hesitate a bit before using, but not something
> > checkpatch should warn about.
>
> How else will you get people to hesitate?
The fact that
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:52:15PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 07:47:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The RCU expedited primitives have been completely rewritten since then,
> > and no longer use try_stop_cpus(), no longer disturb idle CPUs, and no
> > longer distu
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 07:58:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> Still something to hesitate a bit before using, but not something
> checkpatch should warn about.
How else will you get people to hesitate?
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 07:47:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 02:08:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:48:08PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > > On 04/19/2017 01:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So the thing Maz compla
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 07:47:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The RCU expedited primitives have been completely rewritten since then,
> and no longer use try_stop_cpus(), no longer disturb idle CPUs, and no
> longer disturb nohz_full CPUs running in userspace. In addition, there
> is the rcu
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 02:08:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:48:08PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > On 04/19/2017 01:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > So the thing Maz complained about is because KVM assumes
> > > synchronize_srcu() is 'free' when th
On 04/19/2017 03:22 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:48:08PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> On 04/19/2017 01:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>
>>> So the thing Maz complained about is because KVM assumes
>>> synchronize_srcu() is 'free' when there is no srcu_read_lock
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:48:08PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 04/19/2017 01:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > So the thing Maz complained about is because KVM assumes
> > synchronize_srcu() is 'free' when there is no srcu_read_lock() activity.
> > This series 'breaks' that.
>
> W
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 06:02:45AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:28:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > So the thing Maz complained about is because KVM assumes
> > synchronize_srcu() is 'free' when there is no srcu_read_lock() activity.
> > This series 'breaks'
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:28:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> So the thing Maz complained about is because KVM assumes
> synchronize_srcu() is 'free' when there is no srcu_read_lock() activity.
> This series 'breaks' that.
>
> I've not looked hard enough at the new SRCU to see if its possib
On 19/04/17 13:08, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:48:08PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> On 04/19/2017 01:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>
>>> So the thing Maz complained about is because KVM assumes
>>> synchronize_srcu() is 'free' when there is no srcu_read_lock() acti
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:48:08PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 04/19/2017 01:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > So the thing Maz complained about is because KVM assumes
> > synchronize_srcu() is 'free' when there is no srcu_read_lock() activity.
> > This series 'breaks' that.
>
> W
On 04/19/2017 01:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> So the thing Maz complained about is because KVM assumes
> synchronize_srcu() is 'free' when there is no srcu_read_lock() activity.
> This series 'breaks' that.
Why is such a behaviour change not mentioned in the cover letter?
I could not find any
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:28:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> So the thing Maz complained about is because KVM assumes
> synchronize_srcu() is 'free' when there is no srcu_read_lock() activity.
> This series 'breaks' that.
Could've been call_srcu() instead. Looking at the code that trigger
So the thing Maz complained about is because KVM assumes
synchronize_srcu() is 'free' when there is no srcu_read_lock() activity.
This series 'breaks' that.
I've not looked hard enough at the new SRCU to see if its possible to
re-instate that feature.
19 matches
Mail list logo
