Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 15/15] rcu: RCU_SAVE_DYNTICK code no longer ever dead

[Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 05:02:38PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 02:06:10PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Before RCU had unified idle, the RCU_SAVE_DYNTICK leg of the switch
> > statement in force_quiescent_state() was dead code for CONFIG_NO_HZ=n
> > kernel builds.  With unified idle, the code is never dead.  This commit
> > therefore removes the "if" statement designed to make gcc aware of when
> > the code was and was not dead.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> One comment below; with that change:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> >  kernel/rcutree.c |    2 --
> >  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > index 75ad92a..0b0c9cc 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > @@ -1744,8 +1744,6 @@ static void force_quiescent_state(struct rcu_state *rsp, int relaxed)
> >  		break; /* grace period idle or initializing, ignore. */
> >  
> >  	case RCU_SAVE_DYNTICK:
> > -		if (RCU_SIGNAL_INIT != RCU_SAVE_DYNTICK)
> > -			break; /* So gcc recognizes the dead code. */
> >  
> >  		raw_spin_unlock(&rnp->lock);  /* irqs remain disabled */
> 
> Drop the blank line too?

Actually, I just realized a larger concern with what this change
implies: does this mean that whatever change made this code no longer
dead introduced a major locking bug here?  If so, has that change
already progressed past the point where you could update it to include
this fix?

- Josh Triplett
--
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/