Re: [PATCH rcu/urgent 0/6] Fixes for RCU/scheduler/irq-threadstrainwreck
From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Wed Jul 20 2011 - 16:08:50 EST
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 09:39:25PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > If my guess is correct, then the minimal non-RCU_BOOST fix is #4
> > (which drags along #3) and #6. Which are not one-liners, but
> > somewhat smaller:
> > b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h | 12 ++++++------
> > b/kernel/softirq.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> > kernel/rcutree_plugin.h | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > 3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> That's half the patch size and half the patch count.
> PeterZ's question is relevant: since we apparently had similar bugs
> in v2.6.39 as well, what changed in v3.0 that makes them so urgent
> to fix?
> If it's just better instrumentation that proves them better then i'd
> suggest fixing this in v3.1 and not risking v3.0 with an unintended
> side effect.
Agreed, a fix in v3.1 and a backport to v3.0-stable after serious testing
would make a lot of sense.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/