lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/11] rcu: Add missing RCU idle APIs on idle loop v2
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 03:16:49PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 08:50:47PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 02:19:14AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2012-08-24 at 14:26 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 04:58:24PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Changes since v1:
> > > > >
> > > > > - Fixed preempt handling in alpha idle loop
> > > > > - added ack from Geert
> > > > > - fixed stable email address, sorry :-/
> > > > >
> > > > > This time I built tested everywhere but: h8300 (compiler internal error),
> > > > > and mn10300, parisc, score (cross compilers not available in
> > > > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/files/bin/x86_64/4.6.3/)
> > > > >
> > > > > For testing, you can pull from:
> > > > >
> > > > > git://github.com/fweisbec/linux-dynticks.git
> > > > > rcu/idle-fix-v2
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > I have queued these on -rcu branch rcu/idle:
> > > >
> > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git
> > > >
> > > > This problem has been in place since 3.3, so it is hard to argue that
> > > > it is a regression for this merge window. I have therefore queued it
> > > > for 3.7.
> > >
> > > I don't follow that; I would expect any serious bug fix (serious enough
> > > for a stable update) to be acceptable for 3.6 at this point.
> >
> > OK, if any of the arch maintainers wishes to submit the patch to 3.6,
> > they are free to do so -- just let me know and I will drop the patch from
> > my tree.
> >
> > That said, all this does is cause spurious warnings to be printed, so
> > not sure it really qualifies as serious. But I am happy to leave that
> > decision with the individual arch maintainers -- it is their arch,
> > after all, so their decision.
>
> Couldn't that cause hung tasks due to long lasting synchronize_rcu() ?

In theory, definitely. In practice, they haven't been running into it,
or they would be reporting hangs.

Thanx, Paul



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-08-25 18:41    [W:0.055 / U:0.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site