----- On Apr 7, 2019, at 9:59 AM, paulmck paulmck(a)linux.ibm.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 06:39:41AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2019 at 07:06:13PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
> > > b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
> > > index f8f6f04c4453..c2d919a1566e 100644
> > > --- a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
> > > +++ b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
> > > @@ -338,6 +338,10 @@
> > > KEEP(*(__tracepoints_ptrs)) /* Tracepoints: pointer array */ \
> > > __stop___tracepoints_ptrs = .; \
> > > *(__tracepoints_strings)/* Tracepoints: strings */ \
> > > + . = ALIGN(8); \
> > > + __start___srcu_struct = .; \
> > > + *(___srcu_struct_ptrs) \
> > > + __end___srcu_struct = .; \
> > > } \
> > This vmlinux linker modification is not needed. I tested without it and srcu
> > torture works fine with rcutorture built as a module. Putting further prints
> > in kernel/module.c verified that the kernel is able to find the srcu structs
> > just fine. You could squash the below patch into this one or apply it on top
> > of the dev branch.
> Good point, given that otherwise FORTRAN named common blocks would not
> But isn't one advantage of leaving that stuff in the RO_DATA_SECTION()
> macro that it can be mapped read-only? Or am I suffering from excessive
And to answer the other question, in the case where I am suffering from
excessive optimism, it should be a separate commit. Please see below
for the updated original commit thus far.
And may I have your Tested-by?
Just to confirm: does the cleanup performed in the modules going
notifier end up acting as a barrier first before freeing the memory ?
If not, is it explicitly stated that a barrier must be issued before
module unload ?