On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 07:23:43PM -0700, Yuzhuo Jing wrote:
> In an effort to add RCU benchmarks to the perf tool and to improve
> the base-metal rcuscale tests, this patch series adds several auxiliary
> features useful for testing tools.
>
> This series introduces a few rcuscale options:
> *
rnandes
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney
> ---
> .../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst | 41 +++
> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 8
> 2 files changed, 49 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Req
On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 10:22:23AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> The details of this are subtle and was discussed recently. Add a
> quick-quiz about this and refer to it from the code, for more clarity.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney
>
using 1-2 wraps in 5 minutes. I believe
> > this is reasonable since we at least add a little bit of testing for
> > usecases where ->gpwrap is set.
> >
> > Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney
> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes
> > ---
> > v4->v5
> > -
Most of the this_cpu_*() operations may be used in preemptible code,
but not this_cpu_ptr(), and for good reasons. Therefore, better explain
the reasons and call out raw_cpu_ptr() as an alternative in certain very
special cases.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Cc: Jonathan Corbet
Cc: Peter
On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 09:02:16PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 12:02:34PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > +The special cases where it makes sense do obtain a per-CPU pointer in
>
> s/do/to/
>
> > +preemptible code are addressed by raw_cpu_ptr
Most of the this_cpu_*() operations may be used in preemptible code,
but not this_cpu_ptr(), and for good reasons. Therefore, better explain
the reasons and call out raw_cpu_ptr() as an alternative in certain very
special cases.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Cc: Jonathan Corbet
Cc: Peter
counter (2 bits).
>
> Link:
> http://lore.kernel.org/r/4c2cb573-168f-4806-b1d9-164e8276e66a@paulmck-laptop
> Suggested-by: Paul E. McKenney
> Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcu/TREE04
um usable
> width for rcutorture to poke at, so do that.
>
> Make it only configurable under RCU_EXPERT. While at it, add a comment to
> explain the layout of context_tracking->state.
>
> Link:
> http://lore.kernel.org/r/4c2cb573-168f-4806-b1d9-164e8276e66a@paulmck-laptop
On Sat, Oct 07, 2023 at 10:42:09AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 09:52:30 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 05:59:48PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > > On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 10:17:46 -0700
> > > &
On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 05:59:48PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 10:17:46 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
> > In kernels built with CONFIG_BOOT_CONFIG_FORCE=y, /proc/cmdline will
> > show all kernel boot parameters, both those supplied b
: Masami Hiramatsu
Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Cc: Linus Torvalds
Cc: Stephen Rothwell
Cc: Arnd Bergmann
Cc: Nick Desaulniers
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan
Cc: Andrew Morton
Cc: Kees Cook
Cc:
Cc:
---
fs/proc/bootconfig.c | 6 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 09:31:32AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-10-15 21:13:30 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Sadly, this one ran afoul of the .txt-to-.rst migration. Even applying
> > it against linus/master and cherry-picking it does not help. I will
&
true for the `CONFIG_PREEMPT'
> and `CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT' preemption models.
>
> Use `CONFIG_PREEMPTION' if it applies to both preemption models and not
> just to `CONFIG_PREEMPT'.
>
> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney"
> Cc: Josh Triplett
> Cc: Steven Roste
reveals that we lack kerneldoc coverage for
> much of this API, but that's a separate problem.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet
Nice improvement, thank you!!! For whatever it is worth:
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney
> ---
> I'll feed this through docs-next unless somebody t
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 04:56:37PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:12:26PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > > +static int
> > > +kfree_perf_thread(void *arg)
> > > +{
> > > + int i, loop = 0;
> > > + long me
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 01:32:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 01:25:17PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Looks like a pretty clear consensus thus far. Any objections to keeping
> > these .txt for the time being?
>
> Obviously I'm a huge p
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:20:36PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 05:47:56PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > > Paul, also what what happens in the following scenario:
> > > > >
> > > > > CPU0
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 01:14:54PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:13:01AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 11:13:25AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:43:55AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 03:00:46PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:54:07AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:21:46AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:10 AM Paul E
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:21:46AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:10 AM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:43:55AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >
> > [ . . . ]
> >
> > > Paul, do we also nuke rcu_eqs_sp
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:59:07AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 08:43:36PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [snip]
> > On the tracing patch... That patch might be a good idea regardless,
> > but I bet that the reason that you felt the sudden need for
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 11:13:25AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:43:55AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 08:43:36PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > > > > This change is not fixi
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:43:55AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
[ . . . ]
> Paul, do we also nuke rcu_eqs_special_set()? Currently I don't see anyone
> using it. And also remove the bottom most bit of dynticks?
>
> Also what happens if a TLB flush broadcast is needed? Do we IPI nohz or idle
> C
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 09:51:55PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 04:12:47PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 06:14:44PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:01:08PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 06:14:44PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:01:08PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 05:42:41PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:19:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:26:13PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> The dyntick-idle traces are a bit confusing. This patch makes it simpler
> and adds some missing cases such as EQS-enter because user vs idle mode.
>
> Following are the changes:
> (1) Add a new context field to trace_rcu_d
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 05:42:41PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:19:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 05:05:25PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:23:30PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 05:43:20PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:31:19PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 03:01:57PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > Make use of RCU's debug_ob
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 03:01:59PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> Now that kfree_rcu() special casing have been removed from tree RCU,
> remove kfree_call_rcu_nobatch() since it is not needed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
Now -this- one qualifies as a nice negative delta!
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 03:01:58PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> Remove kfree_rcu() special casing and lazy handling from RCU.
> For Tiny RCU we fold the special handling into just Tiny RCU code.
>
> Suggested-by: Paul E. McKenney
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 03:01:57PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> Make use of RCU's debug_objects debugging support
> (CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD) similar to call_rcu() and other flavors.
Other flavors? Ah, call_srcu(), rcu_barrier(), and srcu_barrier(),
right?
> We queue the object
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 05:05:25PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:23:30PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 09:33:54PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > The dynticks_nmi_nesting counter serves 4 purposes:
>
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 03:01:55PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> This test runs kfree_rcu() in a loop to measure performance of the new
> kfree_rcu() batching functionality.
>
> The following table shows results when booting with arguments:
> rcuperf.kfree_loops=2 rcuperf.kfree_alloc
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 04:34:58PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:28:08PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 03:01:54PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > This is a series on top of th
uarantee you that upon return I will
mix and match the wrong patches otherwise!)
> Suggested-by: Paul E. McKenney
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 61 ---
> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 19 deleti
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 03:01:54PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a series on top of the patch "rcu/tree: Add basic support for
> kfree_rcu() batching".
>
> Link: http://lore.kernel.org/r/20190814160411.58591-1-j...@joelfernandes.org
>
> It adds performance tests, some
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 09:33:54PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> The dynticks_nmi_nesting counter serves 4 purposes:
>
> (a) rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle() needs to be able to detect first
> interrupt nesting level.
>
> (b) We need to detect half-interrupts till we a
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 09:33:53PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> The dynticks counter are confusing due to crowbar writes of
> DYNTICK_IRQ_NONIDLE whose purpose is to detect half-interrupts (i.e. we
> see rcu_irq_enter() but not rcu_irq_exit() due to a usermode upcall) and
> if so then do
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 09:33:52PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> These patches clean up the usage of dynticks nesting counters simplifying the
> code, while preserving the usecases.
>
> It is a much needed simplification, makes the code less confusing, and
> prevents
> future bugs such
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:36:03AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> While Paul was explaning some RCU magic I noticed a typo in
> rcu_note_context_switch().
> Replace rcu_node_context_switch() with rcu_note_context_switch().
>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
Good eyes, queued
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:18:42AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> list_for_each_entry_rcu now has support to check for RCU reader sections
> as well as lock. Just use the support in it, instead of explicitly
> checking in the caller.
>
> Acked-by: Tejun Heo
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernande
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 06:34:13PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:44:29AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 01:22:33PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:38:17AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 01:22:33PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:38:17AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:07:38PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > - * Queue an RCU callback for lazy invocat
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 01:00:45PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> Recently a discussion about stability and performance of a system
> involving a high rate of kfree_rcu() calls surfaced on the list [1]
> which led to another discussion how to prepare for this situation.
Looks much improve
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 04:42:05PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 01:22:41PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 06:11:10PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > This patch updates the documentation with information about
>
ing. ]
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.txt b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.txt
index da51d3068850..89db949eeca0 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.txt
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep.txt
@@ -96,7 +96,17 @@ other flavors of rcu_dereference(). On the o
On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 12:19:25AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:52:05 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >
> >> Em Tue, 30 Jul 2019 18:17:01 -0400
> >> Joel Fernandes escreveu:
> >
> > (4) I would argue that every occuren
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 09:47:22PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Tue, 30 Jul 2019 17:04:55 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" escreveu:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 04:37:20PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 06:50:51PM
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 04:37:20PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 06:50:51PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Tue, 30 Jul 2019 14:22:50 -0700
> > "Paul E. McKenney" escreveu:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 09:51
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 06:50:51PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Tue, 30 Jul 2019 14:22:50 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" escreveu:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 09:51:35AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > There are 4 RCU articles that are writte
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 09:51:35AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> There are 4 RCU articles that are written on html format.
>
> The way they are, they can't be part of the Linux Kernel
> documentation body nor share the styles and pdf output.
>
> So, convert them to ReST format.
>
> This
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 06:02:05PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:53:03AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > A few more things below.
> > > > > ---
> > > > > include/linux/rculist.h | 28 ++
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 02:46:49PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:38:33AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:36:58AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > This patch adds support for checking RCU reader sections in li
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 02:35:17PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:22:37AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:00:17PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > This patch adds support for checking RCU reader sections in li
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:36:56AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> Hi,
> This series aims to provide lockdep checking to RCU list macros for additional
> kernel hardening.
>
> RCU has a number of primitives for "consumption" of an RCU protected pointer.
> Most of the time, these consumers
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:37:04AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> list_for_each_entry_rcu has built-in RCU and lock checking. Make use of
> it for acpi_ioremaps list traversal.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
Given that Rafael acked it, this one looks ready.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:37:02AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> list_for_each_entry_rcu now has support to check for RCU reader sections
> as well as lock. Just use the support in it, instead of explictly
> checking in the caller.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
We need an
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 12:03:03AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 03:02:35PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:37:03AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > The pcm_mmcfg_list is traversed with list_for_each_entry_rcu without a
> > > reader-loc
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:37:00AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> Using the previous support added, use it for adding lockdep conditions
> to list usage here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
We need an ack or better from the subsystem maintainer for this one.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:37:01AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> list_for_each_entry_rcu has built-in RCU and lock checking. Make use of
> it in driver core.
>
> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
This one looks ready.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:36:58AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> This patch adds support for checking RCU reader sections in list
> traversal macros. Optionally, if the list macro is called under SRCU or
> other lock/mutex protection, then appropriate lockdep expressions can be
> passed t
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:36:59AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> The rcu/sync code was doing its own check whether we are in a reader
> section. With RCU consolidating flavors and the generic helper added in
> this series, this is no longer need. We can just use the generic helper
> and i
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:00:17PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> This patch adds support for checking RCU reader sections in list
> traversal macros. Optionally, if the list macro is called under SRCU or
> other lock/mutex protection, then appropriate lockdep expressions can be
> passed t
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:26:42AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:00:18PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > The rcu/sync code was doing its own check whether we are in a reader
> > section. With RCU consolidating flavors and the generic helper ad
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:00:18PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> The rcu/sync code was doing its own check whether we are in a reader
> section. With RCU consolidating flavors and the generic helper added in
> this series, this is no longer need. We can just use the generic helper
> and i
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 02:38:20PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 02:10:53PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 02:28:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 12:13:16PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 08:50:10AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 11:36:06AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 07:41:08AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 11:36:06AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 07:41:08AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 09:30:49AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 01:21:14AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 09:30:49AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 01:21:14AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:10:08PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:01:50PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:10:08PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:01:50PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 04:32:06PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 05:35:59PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 05:35:59PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:00:18PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > The rcu/sync code was doing its own check whether we are in a reader
> > section. With RCU consolidating flavors and the generic helper added in
> > this se
ce(). This patches
renames all of them to be rcu_dereference_raw_check() with the "_check()"
indicating sparse checking.
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google)
[ paulmck: Fix checkpatch warnings about parentheses. ]
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
dif
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 06:29:38PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 15:10:45 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 04:01:35PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > > On 6/27/19 3:01 PM, Jiunn Chang wrote:
> > > >T
This commit therefore instead calls for _bh variants
> >(spin_lock_bh() or similar), while noting that _irq does work.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
>
> Should this by Suggested-by?
I wrote it and Jiunn converted my change to
dding the new RCU stuff into the core-api manual so people
> can actually get to it.
Please feel free to add my ack:
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney
Thanx, Paul
On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 03:54:36PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Some documentation files were still pointing to the old place.
>
> Fixes: 229b4e0728e0 ("Documentation: PCI: convert pci.txt to reST")
> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab
Acke
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 03:00:07PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 05:24:47AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 02:14:07PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 08:50:35AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 02:14:07PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 08:50:35AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 10:19:54AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 07:08:26AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 10:19:54AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 07:08:26AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 May 2019 04:14:44 -0400
> > Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >
> > > > I guess the difference between the _raw_notrace and just _raw variants
> > > > is that _no
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 11:43:05PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 11:16:38AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [snip]
> > > The other example could be dentry look up which uses seqlocks for the
> > > RCU-walk case? But that could be too complex.
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 12:11:26AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> Hi Paul, Joel,
>
> > > > On the other hand, would you have ideas for more modern replacement
> > > > examples?
> > >
> > > There are 3 cases I can see in listRCU.txt:
> > > (1) action taken outside of read_lock (can tolerate stale
: d92a8cfcb37ecd13 ("locking/lockdep: Rework FS_RECLAIM annotation")
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney
Or let me know if you would rather me take this via the -rcu tree, either
way works for me!
Thanx,
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:59:32AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Suspicious RCU usage messages are reported as warnings.
>
> Fixes: a5dd63efda3d07b5 ("lockdep: Use "WARNING" tag on lockdep splats")
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven
Reviewed-by: Paul E. Mc
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:57:31AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Since the removal of FS_RECLAIM annotations, lockdep states contain six
> characters, not four.
Does the above want to instead say "four characters, not six"?
Thanx, Paul
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 03:05:46PM -0700, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> While reading the docs I noticed some whitespace damage in diagram. Let's
> fix it up to be consistent with elsewhere in the document: use one leading
> tab, followed by spaces for any additional whitespace required.
>
> Signed-off-
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 06:55:46AM +0900, SeongJae Park wrote:
> This patchset updates the Korean translation of memory-barriers.txt to follow
> latest changes. It has been reviewed by my one Korean colleague.
>
> SeongJae Park (2):
> sched/Documentation/kokr: Update Korean translation to updat
n
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
Cc:
Cc:
Cc:
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
---
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 6 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index 1c22b21
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 02:13:29PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:02:36AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 08:36:36AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 10:46:10AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
&
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 08:36:36AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 10:46:10AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 11:23:07PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:58:23AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > On 2019/1/3 上午4:57,
section MODULE PARAMETERS in torture.txt and
adds a reference to the information in kernel-parameters.txt.
Signed-off-by: Junchang Wang
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
[ paulmck: Add search string. ]
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/torture.txt b/Documentation/RCU/torture.txt
inde
On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 11:48:00AM +0800, Junchang Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 1:54 AM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 01, 2019 at 10:03:20PM +0800, Junchang Wang wrote:
> > > Torture types "rcu_bh" and "sched" were removed in co
On Tue, Jan 01, 2019 at 10:03:20PM +0800, Junchang Wang wrote:
> Torture types "rcu_bh" and "sched" were removed in commit "c770c82a23".
> The name of torture type "rcu_busted" was changed to "busted" in commit
> "b3c983142d". Two other types, "srcud" and "busted_srcud" were added in
> commits "ca1
On Tue, Jan 01, 2019 at 10:03:19PM +0800, Junchang Wang wrote:
> Fix outdated links in whatisRCU.txt.
>
> Signed-off-by: Junchang Wang
Queued and pushed, thank you!
Thanx, Paul
> ---
> Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt | 4 ++--
> 1 file c
Update Documentation/memory-barriers.txt to reflect reality.
>
> ..., IOW, what do you mean by "reality"?
>
> >
> > Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> > Cc: Arnd Bergmann
> > Cc: David Laight
> > Cc: Alan Stern
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra
> &g
to reflect reality.
>
> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann
> Cc: David Laight
> Cc: Alan Stern
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra
> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney"
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon
Queued, with the addition of Cc: of LKML, linux-arch, and linux-docs,
thank yo
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 10:24:25AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 05:07:58AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 08:58:44PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:52:23PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 08:58:44PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:52:23PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 19:25:29 -0700
> > Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 09:50:35PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 18 Oct 2018
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 05:03:50PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 07:46:37AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [..]
> > > > > > > >
> >
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 07:07:51PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 01:33:24PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:15:05AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 09:11:00AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
1 - 100 of 201 matches
Mail list logo
