----- On Apr 7, 2019, at 9:59 AM, paulmck paul...@linux.ibm.com wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 06:39:41AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 06, 2019 at 07:06:13PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> 
> [ . . . ]
> 
>> > > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
>> > > b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
>> > > index f8f6f04c4453..c2d919a1566e 100644
>> > > --- a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
>> > > +++ b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
>> > > @@ -338,6 +338,10 @@
>> > >                  KEEP(*(__tracepoints_ptrs)) /* Tracepoints: pointer 
>> > > array */ \
>> > >                  __stop___tracepoints_ptrs = .;                          
>> > > \
>> > >                  *(__tracepoints_strings)/* Tracepoints: strings */      
>> > > \
>> > > +                . = ALIGN(8);                                           
>> > > \
>> > > +                __start___srcu_struct = .;                              
>> > > \
>> > > +                *(___srcu_struct_ptrs)                                  
>> > > \
>> > > +                __end___srcu_struct = .;                                
>> > > \
>> > >          }                                                               
>> > > \
>> > 
>> > This vmlinux linker modification is not needed. I tested without it and 
>> > srcu
>> > torture works fine with rcutorture built as a module. Putting further 
>> > prints
>> > in kernel/module.c verified that the kernel is able to find the srcu 
>> > structs
>> > just fine. You could squash the below patch into this one or apply it on 
>> > top
>> > of the dev branch.
>> 
>> Good point, given that otherwise FORTRAN named common blocks would not
>> work.
>> 
>> But isn't one advantage of leaving that stuff in the RO_DATA_SECTION()
>> macro that it can be mapped read-only?  Or am I suffering from excessive
>> optimism?
> 
> And to answer the other question, in the case where I am suffering from
> excessive optimism, it should be a separate commit.  Please see below
> for the updated original commit thus far.
> 
> And may I have your Tested-by?

Just to confirm: does the cleanup performed in the modules going
notifier end up acting as a barrier first before freeing the memory ?
If not, is it explicitly stated that a barrier must be issued before
module unload ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Reply via email to