Re: [PATCH -rt 1/9] preempt rcu: check for underflow

[Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>]

On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 11:22 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote:
> 
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If our rcu_read_lock_nesting went negative, likely
> > +	 * something is wrong..
> > +	 */
> > +	WARN_ON(current->rcu_read_lock_nesting < 0);
> 
> have you actually caught any rcu locking problem this way? Double 
> unlocks should be caught by lockdep already, at a higher level.
> 
> in any case i've added a slightly different form of this change to the 
> -rt queue that will also check for counter overflows. But i'm not sure 
> we want to litter the code with trivial checks like this, so i'm keeping 
> it separate and if it does not trigger anything real i'll remove it.

I haven't caught anything with it, but this code would have made it much
easier to catch the single rcu unlock in sys_sched_yield() which was
silent in PREEMPT_RT, and hung !PREEMPT_RT ..

It's fine with me, if you have another method.

Daniel

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