From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: remove the context test in rcu_read_unlock_special()
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 07:06:34 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120402140634.GH2450@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F7947EB.5040809@cn.fujitsu.com>
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 02:32:11PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 03/30/2012 05:56 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 04:21:44PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >> Because of commit#26861f and #10f39bb1b2, the context test in
> >> rcu_read_unlock_special() are not needed.
> >>
> >> commit#26861f and #10f39bb1b2 ensure ->rcu_read_unlock_special is zero
> >> after rcu_read_unlock(), which implies:
> >>
> >> if ->rcu_read_unlock_special is non-zero, the out-most RCU C.S. can
> >> be interrupted or can be preempted, such context is safe to
> >> call rcu_read_unlock_special().
> >
> > In theory, I am very much in favor of this, but in practice we need to
> > put a WARN_ON_ONCE() in the "if" statement to be removed for a few years
> > first. If there are never any warnings (or, more likely, once such
> > warnings have been fixed for some time), then this patch below would be
> > eminently sensible.
>
> Add BUG_ON() instead, how about it?
> Thanks,
> Lai
We need a two-step process: (1) Add a WARN_ON() in the existing "if"
statement, and after a year or so of no WARN_ON()s being triggered (2)
eliminate the "if" and in_serving_softirq().
Thanx, Paul
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutiny_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutiny_plugin.h
> index 22ecea0..22e2ef1 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutiny_plugin.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcutiny_plugin.h
> @@ -571,12 +571,6 @@ static noinline void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
> if (special & RCU_READ_UNLOCK_NEED_QS)
> rcu_preempt_cpu_qs();
>
> - /* Hardware IRQ handlers cannot block. */
> - if (in_irq() || in_serving_softirq()) {
> - local_irq_restore(flags);
> - return;
> - }
> -
> /* Clean up if blocked during RCU read-side critical section. */
> if (special & RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED) {
> t->rcu_read_unlock_special &= ~RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED;
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> index c023464..e90593e 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> @@ -210,6 +210,7 @@ static void rcu_preempt_note_context_switch(int cpu)
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> } else if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting < 0 &&
> t->rcu_read_unlock_special) {
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(t->rcu_read_lock_nesting != INT_MIN);
>
> /*
> * Complete exit from RCU read-side critical section on
> @@ -239,7 +240,10 @@ static void rcu_preempt_note_context_switch(int cpu)
> */
> void __rcu_read_lock(void)
> {
> - current->rcu_read_lock_nesting++;
> + struct task_struct *t = current;
> +
> + BUG_ON(!t->rcu_read_lock_nesting && t->rcu_read_unlock_special);
> + t->rcu_read_lock_nesting++;
> barrier(); /* needed if we ever invoke rcu_read_lock in rcutree.c */
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__rcu_read_lock);
> @@ -338,12 +342,6 @@ static noinline void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
> rcu_preempt_qs(smp_processor_id());
> }
>
> - /* Hardware IRQ handlers cannot block. */
> - if (in_irq() || in_serving_softirq()) {
> - local_irq_restore(flags);
> - return;
> - }
> -
> /* Clean up if blocked during RCU read-side critical section. */
> if (special & RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED) {
> t->rcu_read_unlock_special &= ~RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED;
> @@ -439,6 +437,7 @@ void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
> rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> barrier(); /* ->rcu_read_unlock_special load before assign */
> t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0;
> + BUG_ON(t->rcu_read_unlock_special);
> }
> #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> {
> diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c
> index 671f959..7074f97 100644
> --- a/kernel/softirq.c
> +++ b/kernel/softirq.c
> @@ -318,12 +318,8 @@ static inline void invoke_softirq(void)
> #else
> do_softirq();
> #endif
> - } else {
> - __local_bh_disable((unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0),
> - SOFTIRQ_OFFSET);
> + } else
> wakeup_softirqd();
> - __local_bh_enable(SOFTIRQ_OFFSET);
> - }
> }
>
> /*
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-02 15:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-29 8:21 [PATCH] rcu: remove the context test in rcu_read_unlock_special() Lai Jiangshan
2012-03-29 21:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-02 6:32 ` Lai Jiangshan
2012-04-02 14:06 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120402140634.GH2450@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.