From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
c0d1n61at3@gmail.com, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
edumazet@google.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
keescook@chromium.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
neilb@suse.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
will@kernel.org,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
<x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] rcu: Add support for consolidated-RCU reader checking
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:10:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190712151051.GB235410@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190712111125.GT3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:11:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:43:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > +int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void)
> > +{
> > + int lockdep_opinion = 0;
> > +
> > + if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled())
> > + return 1;
> > + if (!rcu_is_watching())
> > + return 0;
> > + if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online())
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + /* Preemptible RCU flavor */
> > + if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map))
>
> you forgot debug_locks here.
Actually, it turns out debug_locks checking is not even needed. If
debug_locks == 0, then debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() returns 0 and we would not
get to this point.
> > + return 1;
> > +
> > + /* BH flavor */
> > + if (in_softirq() || irqs_disabled())
>
> I'm not sure I'd put irqs_disabled() under BH, also this entire
> condition is superfluous, see below.
>
> > + return 1;
> > +
> > + /* Sched flavor */
> > + if (debug_locks)
> > + lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map);
> > + return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible();
>
> that !preemptible() turns into:
>
> !(preempt_count()==0 && !irqs_disabled())
>
> which is:
>
> preempt_count() != 0 || irqs_disabled()
>
> and already includes irqs_disabled() and in_softirq().
>
> > +}
>
> So maybe something lke:
>
> if (debug_locks && (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) ||
> lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map)))
> return true;
Agreed, I will do it this way (without the debug_locks) like:
---8<-----------------------
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c
index ba861d1716d3..339aebc330db 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/update.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c
@@ -296,27 +296,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_bh_held);
int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void)
{
- int lockdep_opinion = 0;
-
if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled())
return 1;
if (!rcu_is_watching())
return 0;
if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online())
return 0;
-
- /* Preemptible RCU flavor */
- if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map))
- return 1;
-
- /* BH flavor */
- if (in_softirq() || irqs_disabled())
- return 1;
-
- /* Sched flavor */
- if (debug_locks)
- lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map);
- return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible();
+ if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) || lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map))
+ return 1;
+ return !preemptible();
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_any_held);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-12 15:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-11 23:43 [PATCH v1 0/6] Harden list_for_each_entry_rcu() and family Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-07-11 23:43 ` [PATCH v1 1/6] rcu: Add support for consolidated-RCU reader checking Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-07-12 4:49 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-07-12 11:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-12 14:49 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-07-12 11:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-12 15:10 ` Joel Fernandes [this message]
2019-07-12 15:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-12 16:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-12 17:06 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-07-12 17:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-12 19:40 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-07-12 23:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-12 12:12 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-07-12 13:56 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-07-11 23:43 ` [PATCH v1 2/6] ipv4: add lockdep condition to fix for_each_entry Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-07-11 23:43 ` [PATCH v1 3/6] driver/core: Convert to use built-in RCU list checking Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-07-12 5:19 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-07-11 23:43 ` [PATCH v1 4/6] workqueue: Convert for_each_wq to use built-in list check Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-07-11 23:44 ` [PATCH v1 5/6] x86/pci: Pass lockdep condition to pcm_mmcfg_list iterator Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-07-11 23:44 ` [PATCH v1 6/6] acpi: Use built-in RCU list checking for acpi_ioremaps list Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-07-11 23:52 ` [PATCH v1 0/6] Harden list_for_each_entry_rcu() and family Joel Fernandes
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=20190712151051.GB235410@google.com \
--to=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=c0d1n61at3@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=neilb@suse.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.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.