linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the block tree
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: [PATCH 0/2] Common struct clk implementation, v5
Next: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the net tree
From: Jens Axboe on 22 Jun 2010 02:30 On 2010-06-22 02:40, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:04:23AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi Paul, >> >> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:40:33 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr(a)canb.auug.org.au> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:13:00 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I took a look, and all of the changes from "fs: remove all rcu head >>>> initializations, except on_stack initializations" are reflected in -next. >>> >>> Thanks for checking. >> >> Is there some way that this commit can be merged via the block tree? Or >> does later work in your tree depend on it? There is considerable and >> ongoing work in the block tree on the same areas as your commit changes. >> Even today, this conflict is going to be much worse. > > I have no problem with this patch being applied via the block tree, as > long as it doesn't take too many minor releases for it to hit mainline. ;-) > > How would everyone like to proceed? The stuff in the block tree is either destined for the current release or the next one, the patches going into for-next are a merge of those two parts. Is this rcu patch for .35 or .36? -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Paul E. McKenney on 22 Jun 2010 13:20 On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 08:26:01AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 2010-06-22 02:40, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:04:23AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> Hi Paul, > >> > >> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:40:33 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr(a)canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:13:00 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I took a look, and all of the changes from "fs: remove all rcu head > >>>> initializations, except on_stack initializations" are reflected in -next. > >>> > >>> Thanks for checking. > >> > >> Is there some way that this commit can be merged via the block tree? Or > >> does later work in your tree depend on it? There is considerable and > >> ongoing work in the block tree on the same areas as your commit changes. > >> Even today, this conflict is going to be much worse. > > > > I have no problem with this patch being applied via the block tree, as > > long as it doesn't take too many minor releases for it to hit mainline. ;-) > > > > How would everyone like to proceed? > > The stuff in the block tree is either destined for the current release > or the next one, the patches going into for-next are a merge of those > two parts. > > Is this rcu patch for .35 or .36? ..35 would be good. ;-) But I can make .36 work if need be. Please see below for the patch. Alternatively, feel free to grab commit b97181f24212f4c29197890ce1b2b9100bcc184d from -tip or from git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-2.6-rcu.git Thanx, Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------ commit b97181f24212f4c29197890ce1b2b9100bcc184d Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon May 10 17:09:25 2010 -0700 fs: remove all rcu head initializations, except on_stack initializations Remove all rcu head inits. We don't care about the RCU head state before passing it to call_rcu() anyway. Only leave the "on_stack" variants so debugobjects can keep track of objects on stack. Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan(a)gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers(a)efficios.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Alexander Viro <viro(a)zeniv.linux.org.uk> Cc: Andries Brouwer <aeb(a)cwi.nl> diff --git a/fs/file.c b/fs/file.c index 34bb7f7..cccaead 100644 --- a/fs/file.c +++ b/fs/file.c @@ -178,7 +178,6 @@ static struct fdtable * alloc_fdtable(unsigned int nr) fdt->open_fds = (fd_set *)data; data += nr / BITS_PER_BYTE; fdt->close_on_exec = (fd_set *)data; - INIT_RCU_HEAD(&fdt->rcu); fdt->next = NULL; return fdt; @@ -312,7 +311,6 @@ struct files_struct *dup_fd(struct files_struct *oldf, int *errorp) new_fdt->close_on_exec = (fd_set *)&newf->close_on_exec_init; new_fdt->open_fds = (fd_set *)&newf->open_fds_init; new_fdt->fd = &newf->fd_array[0]; - INIT_RCU_HEAD(&new_fdt->rcu); new_fdt->next = NULL; spin_lock(&oldf->file_lock); @@ -430,7 +428,6 @@ struct files_struct init_files = { .fd = &init_files.fd_array[0], .close_on_exec = (fd_set *)&init_files.close_on_exec_init, .open_fds = (fd_set *)&init_files.open_fds_init, - .rcu = RCU_HEAD_INIT, }, .file_lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(init_task.file_lock), }; diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c index 1d1088f..af92100 100644 --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c @@ -75,12 +75,33 @@ static inline bool bdi_work_on_stack(struct bdi_work *work) return test_bit(WS_ONSTACK_B, &work->state); } -static inline void bdi_work_init(struct bdi_work *work, - struct wb_writeback_args *args) +static inline void __bdi_work_init(struct bdi_work *work, + struct wb_writeback_args *args, + int on_stack) { - INIT_RCU_HEAD(&work->rcu_head); work->args = *args; work->state = WS_USED; + if (on_stack) { + work->state |= WS_ONSTACK; + init_rcu_head_on_stack(&work->rcu_head); + } +} + +static inline void bdi_work_init(struct bdi_work *work, + struct wb_writeback_args *args) +{ + __bdi_work_init(work, args, false); +} + +static inline void bdi_work_init_on_stack(struct bdi_work *work, + struct wb_writeback_args *args) +{ + __bdi_work_init(work, args, true); +} + +static inline void bdi_destroy_work_on_stack(struct bdi_work *work) +{ + destroy_rcu_head_on_stack(&work->rcu_head); } /** @@ -233,11 +254,11 @@ static void bdi_sync_writeback(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, }; struct bdi_work work; - bdi_work_init(&work, &args); - work.state |= WS_ONSTACK; + bdi_work_init_on_stack(&work, &args); bdi_queue_work(bdi, &work); bdi_wait_on_work_clear(&work); + bdi_destroy_work_on_stack(&work); } /** diff --git a/fs/partitions/check.c b/fs/partitions/check.c index 5dcd4b0..72c5265 100644 --- a/fs/partitions/check.c +++ b/fs/partitions/check.c @@ -459,7 +459,6 @@ struct hd_struct *add_partition(struct gendisk *disk, int partno, } /* everything is up and running, commence */ - INIT_RCU_HEAD(&p->rcu_head); rcu_assign_pointer(ptbl->part[partno], p); /* suppress uevent if the disk supresses it */ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Paul E. McKenney on 22 Jun 2010 17:10
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 02:31:21PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in > fs/fs-writeback.c between commit 79338d2a78ab78efdc1698f1309766a039addf9d > ("writeback: simplify the write back thread queue") from the block tree > and commit b97181f24212f4c29197890ce1b2b9100bcc184d ("fs: remove all rcu > head initializations, except on_stack initializations") from the tip tree. > > This time it is not clear if the RCU updates are needed any more at all, > so for today I just used the version of fs/fs-writeback.c from the block > tree. The current -next tree has gotten rid of all teh RCU_INIT_HEAD, RCU_HEAD, and INIT_RCU_HEAD calls, as it should. Woo-hoo!!! ;-) Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |