On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:19:15PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 10:07:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:13:42AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Currently, __srcu_read_lock() cannot be invoked from restricted
> > > environments because it contains calls to preempt_disable() and
> > > preempt_enable(), both of which can invoke lockdep, which is a bad
> > > idea in some restricted execution modes. This commit therefore moves
> > > the preempt_disable() and preempt_enable() from __srcu_read_lock()
> > > to srcu_read_lock(). It also inserts the preempt_disable() and
> > > preempt_enable() around the call to __srcu_read_lock() in do_exit().
> >
> > Did you not simply want to use: preempt_disable_notrace() ?
>
> I believe that tracing the preempt_disable() in srcu_read_lock() and
> srcu_read_unlock() is actually a good thing. Or am I missing your
> point?
Depends a bit on why we needed this change in the first place -- which,
going by the other branch of this thread, seems lost. However,
preempt_{dis,en}able_notrace() will not end up in any tracer/lockdep and
generate the minimum code that preserves the required semantics.
--
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/
