Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 11:43:42 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com>,
        Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: call_rcu from trace_preempt
Message-ID: <20150616114342.340b8c06@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20150616141626.GI3913@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <557F509D.2000509@plumgrid.com>
	<20150615230702.GB3913@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<557F7764.5060707@plumgrid.com>
	<20150616021458.GE3913@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<557FB7E1.6080004@plumgrid.com>
	<20150616122733.GG3913@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<558018DD.1080701@monom.org>
	<20150616141626.GI3913@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 723
Lines: 19

On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 07:16:26 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> > Just for the record: Using a thread for freeing the memory is curing the
> > problem without the need to modify rcu_is_watching.
> 
> I must confess to liking this approach better than guaranteeing full-up
> reentrancy in call_rcu() and kfree_rcu().  ;-)
> 

Then reentrancy must be really bad if you prefer a spinning thread that
polls constantly just to free an item ;-)

-- Steve
--
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/