percpu_rw_semaphore: lockdep + config
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first
- v1 Latest3 patches 3 repliesIn review
Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet
| # | Subject and files | Size | Replies | Applied |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/3 | percpu_rw_semaphore: kill ->writer_mutex, add ->write_ctrinclude/ lib/ | +18 | 0 replies | |
| 2/3 | percpu_rw_semaphore: add the lockdep annotationsinclude/ lib/ | +26 | 2 replies | |
| 3/3 | percpu_rw_semaphore: introduce CONFIG_PERCPU_RWSEMarch/ block/ lib/ +1 more | +7 | 0 replies |
Reviews trailers per patch
No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v1 yet.
Cover letter [PATCH -mm 0/3] percpu_rw_semaphore: lockdep + config
Quoted 7 lines · Oleg Nesterov
To remind, once/if I am sure you agree with this patch I'll send 2 additional and simple patches:
1. lockdep annotations
2.
CONFIG_PERCPU_RWSEM
It turns out, lockdep annotations are not that simple due to internal locks used by percpu_rw_semaphore. To clarify, it is actually simple but lockdep_set_novalidate_class() doesn't seem to actually work, and more importantly, it must not be used according to checkpatch.pl. And I guess ->lockdep_recursion should not be used too.
However, without some tricks, the output from lockdep (when it finds the problem) does not look very clear because it blames those internal locks instead of "the whole" percpu_rw_semaphore.
So this series starts with the small optimization which I was going to do later. It removes ->writer_mutex and greatly simplifies 2/3.
Oleg.