On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 07:31:25PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/21, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 08:39:09PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 01/21, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But I agreed that the code looks simpler with bitfields, so perhaps
> > > > this patch is better.
> > >
> > > Besides, I guess the major offender is rcu...
> > >
> > > Paul, can't we do something like below? Saves 19.5 kilobytes,
> > >
> > > - 5255131 2974376 10125312 18354819 1181283 vmlinux
> > > + 5235227 2970344 10125312 18330883 117b503 vmlinux
> > >
> > > probably we can also uninline rcu_lockdep_assert()...
> >
> > Looks mostly plausible, some questions inline below.
>
> Thanks!
>
> > > static inline void rcu_read_lock(void)
> > > {
> > > - __rcu_read_lock();
> > > __acquire(RCU);
> > > - rcu_lock_acquire(&rcu_lock_map);
> > > - rcu_lockdep_assert(rcu_is_watching(),
> > > - "rcu_read_lock() used illegally while idle");
> > > + __rcu_read_lock();
> > > + rcu_lock_acquire();
> >
> > Not sure why __rcu_read_lock() needs to be in any particular order
> > with respect to the sparse __acquire(RCU), but should work either way.
> > Same question about the other reorderings of similar statements.
>
> I did this unconsciously and for no reason, will revert this accidental
> change.
>
> > > static inline void rcu_read_lock_sched(void)
> > > {
> > > - preempt_disable();
> > > __acquire(RCU_SCHED);
> > > - rcu_lock_acquire(&rcu_sched_lock_map);
> > > + preempt_disable();
> > > + rcu_lock_acquire_sched();
> > > rcu_lockdep_assert(rcu_is_watching(),
> > > "rcu_read_lock_sched() used illegally while idle");
> >
> > The above pair of lines (rcu_lockdep_assert()) should also be removed,
> > correct?
>
> yes, sure, thanks,
>
> > > @@ -862,8 +867,8 @@ static inline void rcu_read_lock_sched(void)
> > > /* Used by lockdep and tracing: cannot be traced, cannot call lockdep. */
> > > static inline notrace void rcu_read_lock_sched_notrace(void)
> > > {
> > > - preempt_disable_notrace();
> > > __acquire(RCU_SCHED);
> > > + preempt_disable_notrace();
> >
> > I cannot help repeating myself on this one... ;-)
> >
> > Why the change in order?
>
> see above ;)
>
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > > @@ -333,4 +333,47 @@ static int __init check_cpu_stall_init(void)
> > > }
> > > early_initcall(check_cpu_stall_init);
> > >
> > > +#if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC) || defined(CONFIG_PROVE_RCU)
> > > +
> > > +static void ck_rcu_is_watching(const char *message)
> > > +{
> > > + rcu_lockdep_assert(rcu_is_watching(), message);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +void rcu_lock_acquire(void)
> > > +{
> > > + __rcu_lock_acquire(&rcu_lock_map, _RET_IP_);
> > > + ck_rcu_is_watching("rcu_read_lock() used illegally while idle");
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +void rcu_lock_release(void)
> > > +{
> > > + ck_rcu_is_watching("rcu_read_unlock() used illegally while idle");
> > > + __rcu_lock_release(&rcu_lock_map, _RET_IP_);
> > > +}
> > > ...
>
> Also, this all should be exported. And I think cleanuped somehow.
I would be happy to take a patch with the above issues fixed.
Thanx, Paul
--
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/
