Hello,
On Thu, 2 May 2013, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 06:54:05PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> >
> > I tested the following patch in 2 variants,
> > TINY_RCU and CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU. I see the
>
> Could you please also try CONFIG_TREE_RCU?
Note that I'm testing on some 9-year old
UP system, i.e. 1 CPU. Now I enabled SMP to test CONFIG_TREE_RCU
and the results are same. I think, it should be just like
the TINY_RCU in terms of these debuggings (non-preempt). Extra
rcu_read_lock gives me "Illegal context switch in RCU read-side
critical section" in addition to the "BUG: sleeping function
called from invalid context" message.
> > error if extra rcu_read_lock is added for testing.
> >
> > I'm using the PREEMPT_ACTIVE flag to indicate
> > that we are already under lock. It should work because
> > __might_sleep is not called with such bit. I also tried to
> > add new flag in include/linux/hardirq.h but PREEMPT_ACTIVE
> > depends on the arch, so this alternative looked difficult to
> > implement.
> > +extern int __cond_resched_rcu(void);
> > +
> > +#define cond_resched_rcu() ({ \
> > + __might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__, PREEMPT_ACTIVE | \
> > + PREEMPT_RCU_OFFSET); \
> > + __cond_resched_rcu(); \
> > +})
> > +
> > @@ -7062,7 +7076,9 @@ void __might_sleep(const char *file, int line, int preempt_offset)
> > {
> > static unsigned long prev_jiffy; /* ratelimiting */
> >
> > - rcu_sleep_check(); /* WARN_ON_ONCE() by default, no rate limit reqd. */
> > + /* WARN_ON_ONCE() by default, no rate limit reqd. */
> > + rcu_sleep_check(preempt_offset & PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
>
> Color me confused.
>
> >From what I can see, the two values passed in through preempt_offset
> are PREEMPT_LOCK_OFFSET and SOFTIRQ_DISABLE_OFFSET. PREEMPT_ACTIVE
> is normally a high-order bit, above PREEMPT_MASK, SOFTIRQ_MASK, and
> HARDIRQ_MASK.
>
> PREEMPT_LOCK_OFFSET and SOFTIRQ_DISABLE_OFFSET have only low-order bits,
> so I don't see how rcu_sleep_check() is passed anything other than zero.
> Am I going blind, or what?
Only the new cond_resched_rcu() macro provides
PREEMPT_ACTIVE flag to skip the rcu_preempt_sleep_check()
call. The old macros provide locked=0 as you noticed. Does it
answer your question or I'm missing something?
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
