On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:30:11 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

quoted text
> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2010-04-23 13:03:49]:
> 
> > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:58:14 +0900
> > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:55:16 +0800
> > > Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Li Zefan wrote:
> > > > > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > > >> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:00:41 +0800
> > > > >> Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y, I saw this warning, it's because
> > > > >>> css_id() is not under rcu_read_lock().
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> Ok. Thank you for reporting.
> > > > >> This is ok ? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes, and I did some more simple tests on memcg, no more warning
> > > > > showed up.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > oops, after trigging oom, I saw 2 more warnings:
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Thank you for good testing.
> > v3 here...sorry too rapid posting...
> > 
> 
> Looking at the patch we seem to be protecting the use of only css_*().
> I wonder if we should push down the rcu_read_*lock() semnatics to the
> css routines or is it just too instrusive to do it that way?
> 

Maybe worth to consider for future patches for clean up.

Thanks,
-Kame


--
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/