On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 09:56:45AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 09:01 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 04:25:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > There seem to be some unbalanced rcu_read_{,un}lock() issues of late,
> > > how about doing something like this:
> >
> > This will break when rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() are invoked
> > from NMI/SMI handlers -- the raw_local_irq_save() in lock_acquire() will
> > not mask NMIs or SMIs.
> >
> > One approach would be to check for being in an NMI/SMI handler, and
> > to avoid calling lock_acquire() and lock_release() in those cases.
>
> It seems:
>
> #define nmi_enter() do { lockdep_off(); __irq_enter(); } while (0)
> #define nmi_exit() do { __irq_exit(); lockdep_on(); } while (0)
>
> Should make it all work out just fine. (for NMIs at least, /me fully
> ignorant of the workings of SMIs)
Very good point, at least for NMIs on i386 and x86_64. Can't say that I
know much about SMIs myself. Or about whatever equivalents to NMIs and
SMIs might exist on other platforms. :-/ Of course, the other platforms
could be handled by making the RCU lockdep operate only on i386 and x86_64
if required.
Corey, any advice on SMI handlers? Is there something like nmi_enter()
and nmi_exit() that allows disabing lockdep?
> > Another approach would be to use sparse, which has checks for
> > rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() nesting.
>
> Yeah, but one more method can never hurt, no? :-)
Excellent point!
I guess the next thing for me is to do a performance check. Looks like
CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC is not on by default, so not violently worried
about performance, but would be good to know.
Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
