* [PATCH] arm64: replace read_lock to rcu lock in call_step_hook
@ 2016-02-08 22:49 ` Yang Shi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Yang Shi @ 2016-02-08 22:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rostedt, catalin.marinas, will.deacon, bigeasy
Cc: linux-kernel, linux-rt-users, linux-arm-kernel, linaro-kernel, yang.shi
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:917
in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 383, name: sh
Preemption disabled at:[<ffff800000124c18>] kgdb_cpu_enter+0x158/0x6b8
CPU: 3 PID: 383 Comm: sh Tainted: G W 4.1.13-rt13 #2
Hardware name: Freescale Layerscape 2085a RDB Board (DT)
Call trace:
[<ffff8000000885e8>] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x128
[<ffff800000088734>] show_stack+0x24/0x30
[<ffff80000079a7c4>] dump_stack+0x80/0xa0
[<ffff8000000bd324>] ___might_sleep+0x18c/0x1a0
[<ffff8000007a20ac>] __rt_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[<ffff8000007a2268>] rt_read_lock+0x40/0x58
[<ffff800000085328>] single_step_handler+0x38/0xd8
[<ffff800000082368>] do_debug_exception+0x58/0xb8
Exception stack(0xffff80834a1e7c80 to 0xffff80834a1e7da0)
7c80: ffffff9c ffffffff 92c23ba0 0000ffff 4a1e7e40 ffff8083 001bfcc4 ffff8000
7ca0: f2000400 00000000 00000000 00000000 4a1e7d80 ffff8083 0049501c ffff8000
7cc0: 00005402 00000000 00aaa210 ffff8000 4a1e7ea0 ffff8083 000833f4 ffff8000
7ce0: ffffff9c ffffffff 92c23ba0 0000ffff 4a1e7ea0 ffff8083 001bfcc0 ffff8000
7d00: 4a0fc400 ffff8083 00005402 00000000 4a1e7d40 ffff8083 00490324 ffff8000
7d20: ffffff9c 00000000 92c23ba0 0000ffff 000a0000 00000000 00000000 00000000
7d40: 00000008 00000000 00080000 00000000 92c23b8b 0000ffff 92c23b8e 0000ffff
7d60: 00000038 00000000 00001cb2 00000000 00000005 00000000 92d7b498 0000ffff
7d80: 01010101 01010101 92be9000 0000ffff 00000000 00000000 00000030 00000000
[<ffff8000000833f4>] el1_dbg+0x18/0x6c
This issue is similar with 62c6c61("arm64: replace read_lock to rcu lock in
call_break_hook"), but comes to single_step_handler.
This also solves kgdbts boot test silent hang issue on 4.4 -rt kernel.
Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c | 21 +++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
index 8aee3ae..c1492ba 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
@@ -186,20 +186,21 @@ static void clear_regs_spsr_ss(struct pt_regs *regs)
/* EL1 Single Step Handler hooks */
static LIST_HEAD(step_hook);
-static DEFINE_RWLOCK(step_hook_lock);
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(step_hook_lock);
void register_step_hook(struct step_hook *hook)
{
- write_lock(&step_hook_lock);
- list_add(&hook->node, &step_hook);
- write_unlock(&step_hook_lock);
+ spin_lock(&step_hook_lock);
+ list_add_rcu(&hook->node, &step_hook);
+ spin_unlock(&step_hook_lock);
}
void unregister_step_hook(struct step_hook *hook)
{
- write_lock(&step_hook_lock);
- list_del(&hook->node);
- write_unlock(&step_hook_lock);
+ spin_lock(&step_hook_lock);
+ list_del_rcu(&hook->node);
+ spin_unlock(&step_hook_lock);
+ synchronize_rcu();
}
/*
@@ -213,15 +214,15 @@ static int call_step_hook(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int esr)
struct step_hook *hook;
int retval = DBG_HOOK_ERROR;
- read_lock(&step_hook_lock);
+ rcu_read_lock();
- list_for_each_entry(hook, &step_hook, node) {
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(hook, &step_hook, node) {
retval = hook->fn(regs, esr);
if (retval == DBG_HOOK_HANDLED)
break;
}
- read_unlock(&step_hook_lock);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
return retval;
}
--
2.0.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] arm64: replace read_lock to rcu lock in call_step_hook
@ 2016-02-08 22:49 ` Yang Shi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Yang Shi @ 2016-02-08 22:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:917
in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 383, name: sh
Preemption disabled at:[<ffff800000124c18>] kgdb_cpu_enter+0x158/0x6b8
CPU: 3 PID: 383 Comm: sh Tainted: G W 4.1.13-rt13 #2
Hardware name: Freescale Layerscape 2085a RDB Board (DT)
Call trace:
[<ffff8000000885e8>] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x128
[<ffff800000088734>] show_stack+0x24/0x30
[<ffff80000079a7c4>] dump_stack+0x80/0xa0
[<ffff8000000bd324>] ___might_sleep+0x18c/0x1a0
[<ffff8000007a20ac>] __rt_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[<ffff8000007a2268>] rt_read_lock+0x40/0x58
[<ffff800000085328>] single_step_handler+0x38/0xd8
[<ffff800000082368>] do_debug_exception+0x58/0xb8
Exception stack(0xffff80834a1e7c80 to 0xffff80834a1e7da0)
7c80: ffffff9c ffffffff 92c23ba0 0000ffff 4a1e7e40 ffff8083 001bfcc4 ffff8000
7ca0: f2000400 00000000 00000000 00000000 4a1e7d80 ffff8083 0049501c ffff8000
7cc0: 00005402 00000000 00aaa210 ffff8000 4a1e7ea0 ffff8083 000833f4 ffff8000
7ce0: ffffff9c ffffffff 92c23ba0 0000ffff 4a1e7ea0 ffff8083 001bfcc0 ffff8000
7d00: 4a0fc400 ffff8083 00005402 00000000 4a1e7d40 ffff8083 00490324 ffff8000
7d20: ffffff9c 00000000 92c23ba0 0000ffff 000a0000 00000000 00000000 00000000
7d40: 00000008 00000000 00080000 00000000 92c23b8b 0000ffff 92c23b8e 0000ffff
7d60: 00000038 00000000 00001cb2 00000000 00000005 00000000 92d7b498 0000ffff
7d80: 01010101 01010101 92be9000 0000ffff 00000000 00000000 00000030 00000000
[<ffff8000000833f4>] el1_dbg+0x18/0x6c
This issue is similar with 62c6c61("arm64: replace read_lock to rcu lock in
call_break_hook"), but comes to single_step_handler.
This also solves kgdbts boot test silent hang issue on 4.4 -rt kernel.
Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c | 21 +++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
index 8aee3ae..c1492ba 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
@@ -186,20 +186,21 @@ static void clear_regs_spsr_ss(struct pt_regs *regs)
/* EL1 Single Step Handler hooks */
static LIST_HEAD(step_hook);
-static DEFINE_RWLOCK(step_hook_lock);
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(step_hook_lock);
void register_step_hook(struct step_hook *hook)
{
- write_lock(&step_hook_lock);
- list_add(&hook->node, &step_hook);
- write_unlock(&step_hook_lock);
+ spin_lock(&step_hook_lock);
+ list_add_rcu(&hook->node, &step_hook);
+ spin_unlock(&step_hook_lock);
}
void unregister_step_hook(struct step_hook *hook)
{
- write_lock(&step_hook_lock);
- list_del(&hook->node);
- write_unlock(&step_hook_lock);
+ spin_lock(&step_hook_lock);
+ list_del_rcu(&hook->node);
+ spin_unlock(&step_hook_lock);
+ synchronize_rcu();
}
/*
@@ -213,15 +214,15 @@ static int call_step_hook(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int esr)
struct step_hook *hook;
int retval = DBG_HOOK_ERROR;
- read_lock(&step_hook_lock);
+ rcu_read_lock();
- list_for_each_entry(hook, &step_hook, node) {
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(hook, &step_hook, node) {
retval = hook->fn(regs, esr);
if (retval == DBG_HOOK_HANDLED)
break;
}
- read_unlock(&step_hook_lock);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
return retval;
}
--
2.0.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: replace read_lock to rcu lock in call_step_hook
2016-02-08 22:49 ` Yang Shi
@ 2016-02-09 9:02 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2016-02-09 9:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yang Shi
Cc: rostedt, catalin.marinas, will.deacon, linux-kernel,
linux-rt-users, linux-arm-kernel, linaro-kernel
* Yang Shi | 2016-02-08 14:49:24 [-0800]:
>BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:917
…
>This issue is similar with 62c6c61("arm64: replace read_lock to rcu lock in
>call_break_hook"), but comes to single_step_handler.
>
>This also solves kgdbts boot test silent hang issue on 4.4 -rt kernel.
I am going to apply this for -RT.
Sebastian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] arm64: replace read_lock to rcu lock in call_step_hook
@ 2016-02-09 9:02 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2016-02-09 9:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
* Yang Shi | 2016-02-08 14:49:24 [-0800]:
>BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:917
?
>This issue is similar with 62c6c61("arm64: replace read_lock to rcu lock in
>call_break_hook"), but comes to single_step_handler.
>
>This also solves kgdbts boot test silent hang issue on 4.4 -rt kernel.
I am going to apply this for -RT.
Sebastian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: replace read_lock to rcu lock in call_step_hook
2016-02-08 22:49 ` Yang Shi
@ 2016-02-09 14:54 ` Will Deacon
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Will Deacon @ 2016-02-09 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yang Shi
Cc: rostedt, catalin.marinas, bigeasy, linux-kernel, linux-rt-users,
linux-arm-kernel, linaro-kernel
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 02:49:24PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:917
> in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 383, name: sh
> Preemption disabled at:[<ffff800000124c18>] kgdb_cpu_enter+0x158/0x6b8
>
> CPU: 3 PID: 383 Comm: sh Tainted: G W 4.1.13-rt13 #2
> Hardware name: Freescale Layerscape 2085a RDB Board (DT)
> Call trace:
> [<ffff8000000885e8>] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x128
> [<ffff800000088734>] show_stack+0x24/0x30
> [<ffff80000079a7c4>] dump_stack+0x80/0xa0
> [<ffff8000000bd324>] ___might_sleep+0x18c/0x1a0
> [<ffff8000007a20ac>] __rt_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
> [<ffff8000007a2268>] rt_read_lock+0x40/0x58
> [<ffff800000085328>] single_step_handler+0x38/0xd8
> [<ffff800000082368>] do_debug_exception+0x58/0xb8
> Exception stack(0xffff80834a1e7c80 to 0xffff80834a1e7da0)
> 7c80: ffffff9c ffffffff 92c23ba0 0000ffff 4a1e7e40 ffff8083 001bfcc4 ffff8000
> 7ca0: f2000400 00000000 00000000 00000000 4a1e7d80 ffff8083 0049501c ffff8000
> 7cc0: 00005402 00000000 00aaa210 ffff8000 4a1e7ea0 ffff8083 000833f4 ffff8000
> 7ce0: ffffff9c ffffffff 92c23ba0 0000ffff 4a1e7ea0 ffff8083 001bfcc0 ffff8000
> 7d00: 4a0fc400 ffff8083 00005402 00000000 4a1e7d40 ffff8083 00490324 ffff8000
> 7d20: ffffff9c 00000000 92c23ba0 0000ffff 000a0000 00000000 00000000 00000000
> 7d40: 00000008 00000000 00080000 00000000 92c23b8b 0000ffff 92c23b8e 0000ffff
> 7d60: 00000038 00000000 00001cb2 00000000 00000005 00000000 92d7b498 0000ffff
> 7d80: 01010101 01010101 92be9000 0000ffff 00000000 00000000 00000030 00000000
> [<ffff8000000833f4>] el1_dbg+0x18/0x6c
>
> This issue is similar with 62c6c61("arm64: replace read_lock to rcu lock in
> call_break_hook"), but comes to single_step_handler.
>
> This also solves kgdbts boot test silent hang issue on 4.4 -rt kernel.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Will
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] arm64: replace read_lock to rcu lock in call_step_hook
@ 2016-02-09 14:54 ` Will Deacon
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Will Deacon @ 2016-02-09 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 02:49:24PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:917
> in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 383, name: sh
> Preemption disabled at:[<ffff800000124c18>] kgdb_cpu_enter+0x158/0x6b8
>
> CPU: 3 PID: 383 Comm: sh Tainted: G W 4.1.13-rt13 #2
> Hardware name: Freescale Layerscape 2085a RDB Board (DT)
> Call trace:
> [<ffff8000000885e8>] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x128
> [<ffff800000088734>] show_stack+0x24/0x30
> [<ffff80000079a7c4>] dump_stack+0x80/0xa0
> [<ffff8000000bd324>] ___might_sleep+0x18c/0x1a0
> [<ffff8000007a20ac>] __rt_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
> [<ffff8000007a2268>] rt_read_lock+0x40/0x58
> [<ffff800000085328>] single_step_handler+0x38/0xd8
> [<ffff800000082368>] do_debug_exception+0x58/0xb8
> Exception stack(0xffff80834a1e7c80 to 0xffff80834a1e7da0)
> 7c80: ffffff9c ffffffff 92c23ba0 0000ffff 4a1e7e40 ffff8083 001bfcc4 ffff8000
> 7ca0: f2000400 00000000 00000000 00000000 4a1e7d80 ffff8083 0049501c ffff8000
> 7cc0: 00005402 00000000 00aaa210 ffff8000 4a1e7ea0 ffff8083 000833f4 ffff8000
> 7ce0: ffffff9c ffffffff 92c23ba0 0000ffff 4a1e7ea0 ffff8083 001bfcc0 ffff8000
> 7d00: 4a0fc400 ffff8083 00005402 00000000 4a1e7d40 ffff8083 00490324 ffff8000
> 7d20: ffffff9c 00000000 92c23ba0 0000ffff 000a0000 00000000 00000000 00000000
> 7d40: 00000008 00000000 00080000 00000000 92c23b8b 0000ffff 92c23b8e 0000ffff
> 7d60: 00000038 00000000 00001cb2 00000000 00000005 00000000 92d7b498 0000ffff
> 7d80: 01010101 01010101 92be9000 0000ffff 00000000 00000000 00000030 00000000
> [<ffff8000000833f4>] el1_dbg+0x18/0x6c
>
> This issue is similar with 62c6c61("arm64: replace read_lock to rcu lock in
> call_break_hook"), but comes to single_step_handler.
>
> This also solves kgdbts boot test silent hang issue on 4.4 -rt kernel.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Will
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: replace read_lock to rcu lock in call_step_hook
2016-02-09 14:54 ` Will Deacon
@ 2016-02-09 15:07 ` Steven Rostedt
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2016-02-09 15:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Will Deacon
Cc: Yang Shi, catalin.marinas, bigeasy, linux-kernel, linux-rt-users,
linux-arm-kernel, linaro-kernel
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 14:54:26 +0000
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Will,
The patch looks good to me. Do you want to take it through your tree?
It benefits mainline too as a rcu_read_lock() is more efficient than
rwlocks. Although I will say this is a slow path anyway.
-- Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] arm64: replace read_lock to rcu lock in call_step_hook
@ 2016-02-09 15:07 ` Steven Rostedt
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2016-02-09 15:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 14:54:26 +0000
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Will,
The patch looks good to me. Do you want to take it through your tree?
It benefits mainline too as a rcu_read_lock() is more efficient than
rwlocks. Although I will say this is a slow path anyway.
-- Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: replace read_lock to rcu lock in call_step_hook
2016-02-09 15:07 ` Steven Rostedt
@ 2016-02-09 16:04 ` Will Deacon
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Will Deacon @ 2016-02-09 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steven Rostedt
Cc: Yang Shi, linaro-kernel, linux-rt-users, catalin.marinas,
bigeasy, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 10:07:58AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 14:54:26 +0000
> Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
>
> Will,
Hi Steve,
> The patch looks good to me. Do you want to take it through your tree?
>
> It benefits mainline too as a rcu_read_lock() is more efficient than
> rwlocks. Although I will say this is a slow path anyway.
I was thinking that Catalin would queue it for 4.6 in the arm64 tree,
since that's probably easiest in case any unlikely conflicts crop up.
Will
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] arm64: replace read_lock to rcu lock in call_step_hook
@ 2016-02-09 16:04 ` Will Deacon
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Will Deacon @ 2016-02-09 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 10:07:58AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 14:54:26 +0000
> Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
>
> Will,
Hi Steve,
> The patch looks good to me. Do you want to take it through your tree?
>
> It benefits mainline too as a rcu_read_lock() is more efficient than
> rwlocks. Although I will say this is a slow path anyway.
I was thinking that Catalin would queue it for 4.6 in the arm64 tree,
since that's probably easiest in case any unlikely conflicts crop up.
Will
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: replace read_lock to rcu lock in call_step_hook
2016-02-09 16:04 ` Will Deacon
@ 2016-02-09 16:08 ` Steven Rostedt
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2016-02-09 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Will Deacon
Cc: Yang Shi, linaro-kernel, linux-rt-users, catalin.marinas,
bigeasy, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:04:42 +0000
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > The patch looks good to me. Do you want to take it through your tree?
> >
> > It benefits mainline too as a rcu_read_lock() is more efficient than
> > rwlocks. Although I will say this is a slow path anyway.
>
> I was thinking that Catalin would queue it for 4.6 in the arm64 tree,
> since that's probably easiest in case any unlikely conflicts crop up.
Oh, OK.
That's fine. I just didn't want you to think that the RT folks were
going to pull it in for mainline.
-- Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] arm64: replace read_lock to rcu lock in call_step_hook
@ 2016-02-09 16:08 ` Steven Rostedt
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2016-02-09 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 16:04:42 +0000
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > The patch looks good to me. Do you want to take it through your tree?
> >
> > It benefits mainline too as a rcu_read_lock() is more efficient than
> > rwlocks. Although I will say this is a slow path anyway.
>
> I was thinking that Catalin would queue it for 4.6 in the arm64 tree,
> since that's probably easiest in case any unlikely conflicts crop up.
Oh, OK.
That's fine. I just didn't want you to think that the RT folks were
going to pull it in for mainline.
-- Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: replace read_lock to rcu lock in call_step_hook
2016-02-09 16:04 ` Will Deacon
@ 2016-02-09 16:24 ` Catalin Marinas
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Catalin Marinas @ 2016-02-09 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Will Deacon
Cc: Steven Rostedt, Yang Shi, linaro-kernel, linux-rt-users, bigeasy,
linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 04:04:42PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 10:07:58AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 14:54:26 +0000
> > Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
>
> > The patch looks good to me. Do you want to take it through your tree?
> >
> > It benefits mainline too as a rcu_read_lock() is more efficient than
> > rwlocks. Although I will say this is a slow path anyway.
>
> I was thinking that Catalin would queue it for 4.6 in the arm64 tree,
> since that's probably easiest in case any unlikely conflicts crop up.
Queued.
--
Catalin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] arm64: replace read_lock to rcu lock in call_step_hook
@ 2016-02-09 16:24 ` Catalin Marinas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Catalin Marinas @ 2016-02-09 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 04:04:42PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 10:07:58AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 14:54:26 +0000
> > Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
>
> > The patch looks good to me. Do you want to take it through your tree?
> >
> > It benefits mainline too as a rcu_read_lock() is more efficient than
> > rwlocks. Although I will say this is a slow path anyway.
>
> I was thinking that Catalin would queue it for 4.6 in the arm64 tree,
> since that's probably easiest in case any unlikely conflicts crop up.
Queued.
--
Catalin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-02-09 16:24 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-02-08 22:49 [PATCH] arm64: replace read_lock to rcu lock in call_step_hook Yang Shi
2016-02-08 22:49 ` Yang Shi
2016-02-09 9:02 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2016-02-09 9:02 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2016-02-09 14:54 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-09 14:54 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-09 15:07 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-02-09 15:07 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-02-09 16:04 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-09 16:04 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-09 16:08 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-02-09 16:08 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-02-09 16:24 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-02-09 16:24 ` Catalin Marinas
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.