Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 7/7] rcu: Quiet RCU-lockdep warningsinvolving interrupt disabling

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 11:56:42AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 08:04 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > > Perhaps the real answer is that we need to create an API for priority
> > > inheritance, that things like RCU could use. Attach a task that another
> > > task requires to finish something and boost the priority of that task.
> > > Maybe even completions could use such a thing?
> > 
> > I would be OK with that -- that was in fact the approach I was taking
> > when I was advised to use mutexes instead.  ;-)
> 
> Maybe we should rethink it. Using the makeshift mutex looks to be a
> short term hack. But if we are starting to build on it, it will end up
> being a horrible design, based off of a hack.
> 
> A mutex is to provide mutual exclusion. If we start bastardizing it to
> do other things, it will become unmaintainable. I dare say that it's
> close to unmaintainable now ;)
> 
> If we create a new API to handle inheritance, then perhaps it could be
> used for other things like workqueues and completions (in -rt only).

Tough choice between yours and Peter's suggestion...

1.	Re-introduce ugly races by eliminating the mutex.

2.	Possibly have to deal with a new spate of lockdep-RCU splats.

Decisions, decisions!  ;-)

I suppose that one approach is to start with Peter's approach,
possibly adapting lockdep to explicitly check -- with an exception for
srcu_read_lock_raw(), of course.  If lockdep-RCU splats rain down too
hard, then perhaps the explicit priority inheritance would be one
potential umbrella.

Thoughts?

							Thanx, Paul

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/