* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

quoted text
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 01:20:59PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > +	if (!rcu_scheduler_active || !debug_locks)
> > > +		return 1;
> > > +	return lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map);
> > 
> > > +	if (!rcu_scheduler_active || !debug_locks)
> > > +		return 1;
> > > +	return lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map);
> > 
> > i guess there could be a common helper here?
> 
> Will do!
> 
> > Also, could we clear rcu_scheduler_active when we clear debug_locks? That way 
> > only a single test is needed, a generic 'is lock debugging active'.
> 
> Doing that will break synchronize_rcu(), which returns immediately if
> !rcu_scheduler_active.

Ok - then have an debug_rcu flag which is cleared appropriately - so that the 
fastpath impact is reduced?

	Ingo
--
unsubscribe notice
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/