|
Hello,
On Thu, 2 May 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 09:22:08PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> > > +extern int __cond_resched_rcu(void);
> > > +
> > > +#define cond_resched_rcu() ({ \
> > > + __might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__, 0); \
> >
> > I see your goal. But digging into __might_sleep()
> > I see that rcu_sleep_check() will scream for the non-preempt
> > case because we are under rcu_read_lock.
>
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> #define PREEMPT_RCU_OFFSET 0
> #else
> #define PREEMPT_RCU_OFFSET 1
> #endif
>
> #define cond_resched_rcu() ({ \
> __might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__, PREEMPT_RCU_OFFSET); \
> __cond_resched_rcu(); \
> })
>
> Should work I think..
Looks like CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP selects
CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT, so PREEMPT_RCU_OFFSET should be
1 in all cases because preempt_disable() adds 1, while
for CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU case rcu_preempt_depth() should
return 1:
#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
#define PREEMPT_RCU_OFFSET 1
#else
#define PREEMPT_RCU_OFFSET PREEMPT_CHECK_OFFSET
#endif
Now the remaining part is to fix rcu_sleep_check() for
the non-preempt case. As there are no nesting depths in this
case, I don't see a solution so far. We can provide
some argument to rcu_preempt_sleep_check to compare
depth with preempt_count() but currently I don't know
how to differentiate cond_resched_lock() from cond_resched_rcu()
when calling __might_sleep, in both cases we provide
PREEMPT_OFFSET. May be some trick is needed here without
adding new arg to __might_sleep, so that we can properly
check for rcu_lock_map.
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|
