On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 11:21:46AM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
static inline void tracepoint_synchronize_unregister(void) {
- synchronize_srcu(&tracepoint_srcu); synchronize_sched();
}
Given you below do call_rcu_sched() and then call_srcu(), isn't the above the wrong way around?
Also, does the above want to be barrier instead of synchronize, so as to guarantee completion of the callbacks.
+static void srcu_free_old_probes(struct rcu_head *head) { kfree(container_of(head, struct tp_probes, rcu)); } +static void rcu_free_old_probes(struct rcu_head *head) +{
- call_srcu(&tracepoint_srcu, head, srcu_free_old_probes);
+}
static inline void release_probes(struct tracepoint_func *old) { if (old) { struct tp_probes *tp_probes = container_of(old, struct tp_probes, probes[0]);
/** Tracepoint probes are protected by both sched RCU and SRCU,* by calling the SRCU callback in the sched RCU callback we* cover both cases. So let us chain the SRCU and sched RCU* callbacks to wait for both grace periods.*/}
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html