Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753526Ab3ILOUW (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:20:22 -0400 Received: from a9-46.smtp-out.amazonses.com ([54.240.9.46]:56901 "EHLO a9-46.smtp-out.amazonses.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752539Ab3ILOUU (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:20:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:20:18 +0000 From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: cl@gentwo.org To: Ingo Molnar cc: Steven Rostedt , Peter Zijlstra , "Paul E. McKenney" , Frederic Weisbecker , Eric Dumazet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, darren@dvhart.com, sbw@mit.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Is it safe to enter an RCU read-side critical section? In-Reply-To: <20130912063940.GC11583@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00000141128b3e55-996e72db-3257-4d38-801a-ab70a7a20ca2-000000@email.amazonses.com> References: <20130909105347.GK31370@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20130909132343.GN3966@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130909133604.GC31370@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <000001410333127c-486c74ec-3209-4c5e-a92f-0c11e00fa141-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130909150854.GD26785@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <0000014103534c88-48ee11a3-a581-4e52-b2df-3a1168047d96-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130909160024.GA25555@gmail.com> <20130909120328.583a586d@gandalf.local.home> <20130909161130.GA27188@gmail.com> <0000014109cebf30-d652cc46-6cf8-4bf1-8ca3-8f9a12c1d7e9-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130912063940.GC11583@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SES-Outgoing: 2013.09.12-54.240.9.46 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1164 Lines: 30 On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > I saw those, he posted 'needs testing' patches. He still behaved > > > passive-aggressively, pretending that it was some difficult task to > > > perform, as if we were pulling his teeth. > > > > I need your review of those. I will rediff as soon as rc1 is out to send > > something that can be put into -next. Please tell me until then if the > > approach is ok. I dont think we can do anything in the merge window. > > The patch looked OK. Have you tested it, such as using a this_cpu op on a > PREEMPT=y kernel in a preemptible section? That should trigger the preempt > warning. The reason that certain __this_cpu ops were converted to raw_cpu ops is because they triggered the preemption check. The test was done in a kvm environment (as evident from the description). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/