From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756045Ab0AMQiy (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:38:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756036Ab0AMQix (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:38:53 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:35233 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756026Ab0AMQiv (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:38:51 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:37:51 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, josh@joshtriplett.org, dvhltc@us.ibm.com, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/8] rcu: add lockdep-based diagnostics to rcu_dereference() Message-ID: <20100113163751.GA13300@elte.hu> References: <20100105020345.GA32114@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100113092242.GA6739@elte.hu> <20100113161721.GC6803@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100113161721.GC6803@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=none autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 _SUMMARY_ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:22:42AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > FYI, i'm getting various runtime warnings triggered by the new RCU checks: > > > > [ 20.630034] WARNING: at net/core/sock.c:1076 __sk_free+0x108/0x140() > > > > bootlog and config attached. > > Gah!!! I forgot to label the RCU-lockdep stuff "RFC"!!! Could you > please rewind tip/core/rcu back to b6407e8639 ("rcu: Give different > levels of the rcu_node hierarchy distinct lockdep names")? Sure - i have done that. > I have fixes for many of the warnings below, both as modifications to uses > of RCU and as modifications to the check code itself. But I have been > building a new patchsets rather than keeping patches on top of this > patchset. I also have modifications in the works to ease transition, for > example, but having a separate CONFIG_PROVE_RCU. Sure, no problem! Ingo