On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:17:32PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 14:15 +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > What makes me wonder here is that the code is preemptible in an
> > rcu_read_locked section. As far as I know preemption needs to be
> > disabled while holding the rcu_read_lock().
>
> Nah, a long long time ago some -rt people complained to paulmck that
> keeping preemption disabled over all this RCU stuff was killing
> latencies. Paul liked the challenge and came up with some mind twisting
> stuff to make it work.
What can I say? I was young and foolish. And I still am pretty
foolish. ;-)
But yes, you are not required to disable preemption across
rcu_read_lock(), and rcu_read_lock() is not guaranteed to disable
preemption. So if you need preemption to be disabled, do it explicitly
with preempt_disable(), local_irq_save(), rcu_read_lock_sched(),
or whatever, because rcu_read_lock() isn't always going to disable
preemption.
> If you're into that kind of pain, look at CONFIG_*_PREEMPT_RCU :-)
Or just set CONFIG_PREEMPT=y, which will set CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU=y
on CONFIG_SMP=y builds and will set CONFIG_TINY_PREEMPT_RCU=y otherwise.
(But please note that CONFIG_TINY_PREEMPT_RCU is going away, after which
CONFIG_PREEMPT=y will always set CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU=y.)
Thanx, Paul
> But yeah, you need to have that stuff enabled before you can hit this
> particular snag.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
