tree 4ae726073e02281c2de51ed394ba2a812fd55c9b
parent 8b09dee67f484e9b42114b1a1f068e080fd7aa56
author Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> 1210620065 +0200
committer Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> 1211184096 +0200

rcu: add call_rcu_sched()

Fourth cut of patch to provide the call_rcu_sched().  This is again to
synchronize_sched() as call_rcu() is to synchronize_rcu().

Should be fine for experimental and -rt use, but not ready for inclusion.
With some luck, I will be able to tell Andrew to come out of hiding on
the next round.

Passes multi-day rcutorture sessions with concurrent CPU hotplugging.

Fixes since the first version include a bug that could result in
indefinite blocking (spotted by Gautham Shenoy), better resiliency
against CPU-hotplug operations, and other minor fixes.

Fixes since the second version include reworking grace-period detection
to avoid deadlocks that could happen when running concurrently with
CPU hotplug, adding Mathieu's fix to avoid the softlockup messages,
as well as Mathieu's fix to allow use earlier in boot.

Fixes since the third version include a wrong-CPU bug spotted by
Andrew, getting rid of the obsolete synchronize_kernel API that somehow
snuck back in, merging spin_unlock() and local_irq_restore() in a
few places, commenting the code that checks for quiescent states based
on interrupting from user-mode execution or the idle loop, removing
some inline attributes, and some code-style changes.

Known/suspected shortcomings:

o	I still do not entirely trust the sleep/wakeup logic.  Next step
	will be to use a private snapshot of the CPU online mask in
	rcu_sched_grace_period() -- if the CPU wasn't there at the start
	of the grace period, we don't need to hear from it.  And the
	bit about accounting for changes in online CPUs inside of
	rcu_sched_grace_period() is ugly anyway.

o	It might be good for rcu_sched_grace_period() to invoke
	resched_cpu() when a given CPU wasn't responding quickly,
	but resched_cpu() is declared static...

This patch also fixes a long-standing bug in the earlier preemptable-RCU
implementation of synchronize_rcu() that could result in loss of
concurrent external changes to a task's CPU affinity mask.  I still cannot
remember who reported this...

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>