Re: [RFC PATCH RT 3/4] rcu: unlock special: Treat irq and preempt disabled the same

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 04:59:30PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 14:10 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 08:19:07PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > [Note: Just before posting this I noticed that the invoke_rcu_core stuff
> > >  is part of the latest RCU pull request, and it has a patch that
> > >  addresses this in a more complicated way that appears to deal with the
> > >  bare irq-disabled sequence as well.
> > 
> > Far easier to deal with it than to debug the lack of it.  ;-)
> > 
> > >  Assuming we need/want to support such sequences, is the
> > >  invoke_rcu_core() call actually going to result in scheduling any
> > >  sooner?  resched_curr() just does the same setting of need_resched
> > >  when it's the same cpu.
> > > ]
> > 
> > Yes, invoke_rcu_core() can in some cases invoke the scheduler sooner.
> > Setting the CPU-local bits might not have effect until the next interrupt.
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how (in the non-use_softirq
> case).  It just calls wake_up_process(), which in resched_curr() will set
> need_resched but not do an IPI-to-self.

The common non-rt case will be use_softirq.  Or are you referring
specifically to this block of code in current -rcu?

		} else if (exp && irqs_were_disabled && !use_softirq &&
			   !t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.deferred_qs) {
			// Safe to awaken and we get no help from enabling
			// irqs, unlike bh/preempt.
			invoke_rcu_core();

								Thanx, Paul