[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 11:50:27 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
c0d1n61at3@...il.com, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
edumazet@...gle.com, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, keescook@...omium.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, kernel-team@...roid.com,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, neilb@...e.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
peterz@...radead.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, will@...nel.org,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] rcu/sync: Remove custom check for reader-section
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 02:38:20PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 02:10:53PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 02:28:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > include/linux/rcu_sync.h | 4 +---
> > > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/rcu_sync.h b/include/linux/rcu_sync.h
> > > > > > > > > > index 9b83865d24f9..0027d4c8087c 100644
> > > > > > > > > > --- a/include/linux/rcu_sync.h
> > > > > > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/rcu_sync.h
> > > > > > > > > > @@ -31,9 +31,7 @@ struct rcu_sync {
> > > > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > > > static inline bool rcu_sync_is_idle(struct rcu_sync *rsp)
> > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > - RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_held() &&
> > > > > > > > > > - !rcu_read_lock_bh_held() &&
> > > > > > > > > > - !rcu_read_lock_sched_held(),
> > > > > > > > > > + RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_any_held(),
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I believe that replacing rcu_read_lock_sched_held() with preemptible()
> > > > > > > > > in a CONFIG_PREEMPT=n kernel will give you false-positive splats here.
> > > > > > > > > If you have not already done so, could you please give it a try?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Paul,
> > > > > > > > I don't think it will cause splats for !CONFIG_PREEMPT.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Currently, rcu_read_lock_any_held() introduced in this patch returns true if
> > > > > > > > !preemptible(). This means that:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The following expression above:
> > > > > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_any_held(),...)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Becomes:
> > > > > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(preemptible(), ...)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For, CONFIG_PREEMPT=n kernels, this means:
> > > > > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(0, ...)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Which would mean no splats. Or, did I miss the point?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I suggest trying it out on a CONFIG_PREEMPT=n kernel.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure, will do, sorry did not try it out yet because was busy with weekend
> > > > > > chores but will do soon, thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not faulting you for taking the weekend off, actually. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > ;-)
> > > >
> > > > I tried doing RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(preemptible(), ...) in this code path and I
> > > > don't get any splats. I also disassembled the code and it seems to me
> > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN() becomes a NOOP which also the above reasoning confirms.
> > >
> > > OK, very good. Could you do the same thing for the RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()
> > > in synchronize_rcu()? Why or why not?
> > >
> >
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > Yes synchronize_rcu() can also make use of this technique since it is
> > strictly illegal to call synchronize_rcu() within a reader section.
> >
> > I will add this to the set of my patches as well and send them all out next
> > week, along with the rcu-sync and bh clean ups we discussed.
>
> After sending this email, it occurs to me it wont work in synchronize_rcu()
> for !CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels. This is because in a !CONFIG_PREEMPT kernel,
> executing in kernel mode itself looks like being in an RCU reader. So we
> should leave that as is. However it will work fine for rcu_sync_is_idle (for
> CONFIG_PREEMPT=n kernels) as I mentioned earlier.
>
> Were trying to throw me a Quick-Quiz ? ;-) In that case, hope I passed!
You did pass. This time. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
