>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 10:36:20AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
> >
> > [..]
> > > kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c | 4 +---
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c
> > > index b52ec45698e8..b2da188133fc 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c
> > > @@ -181,10 +181,9 @@ static void srcu_gp_start_if_needed(struct
> > srcu_struct *ssp)
> > > {
> > > unsigned long cookie;
> > >
> > > - preempt_disable(); // Needed for PREEMPT_LAZY
> > > + lockdep_assert_preemption_disabled();
> >
> > nit: Do we still want to keep the comment that the expectation of
> > preemption
> > being disabled is for the LAZY case?
> >
> Good point, and I do believe that we do. Zqiang, any reason not to
> add this comment back in?
in rcu-tree, this commit:
(935147775c977 "EXP srcu: Enable Tiny SRCU On all CONFIG_SMP=n kernels")
make preempt disable needed for CONFIG_PREEMPT=y or CONFIG_PREEMPT_LAZY=y
when the CONFIG_SMP=n. do we need to replace "Needed for PREEMPT_LAZY"
comments with "Needed for PREEMPT or PREEMPT_LAZY"?
Thanks
Zqiang
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > - Joel
> >
> >
> > > cookie = get_state_synchronize_srcu(ssp);
> > > if (ULONG_CMP_GE(READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx_max), cookie)) {
> > > - preempt_enable();
> > > return;
> > > }
> > > WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx_max, cookie);
> > > @@ -194,7 +193,6 @@ static void srcu_gp_start_if_needed(struct
> > srcu_struct *ssp)
> > > else if (list_empty(&ssp->srcu_work.entry))
> > > list_add(&ssp->srcu_work.entry, &srcu_boot_list);
> > > }
> > > - preempt_enable();
> > > }
> > >
> > > /*
> > > --
> > > 2.48.1
> > >
> >
>
