From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9308EC43613 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:16:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7D72070B for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:16:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726178AbfFTWQM (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jun 2019 18:16:12 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:42716 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725906AbfFTWQL (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jun 2019 18:16:11 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x5KM2vhp128720 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 18:16:10 -0400 Received: from e11.ny.us.ibm.com (e11.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.201]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2t8hte1yfd-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 18:16:10 -0400 Received: from localhost by e11.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 23:16:09 +0100 Received: from b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.23) by e11.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.198) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 20 Jun 2019 23:16:06 +0100 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x5KMG5Wo31326664 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:16:05 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52333B20B7; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:16:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35176B20B4; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:16:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.70.82.26]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:16:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 450B216C6AC7; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 15:16:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 15:16:07 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Scott Wood Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , Thomas Gleixner , Juri Lelli , Clark Williams , linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 1/4] rcu: Acquire RCU lock when disabling BHs Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com References: <20190619011908.25026-1-swood@redhat.com> <20190619011908.25026-2-swood@redhat.com> <20190620205352.GV26519@linux.ibm.com> <1b6dfc95bba69aa53e4e84eebf6af60f0b9ed95c.camel@redhat.com> <20190620212035.GY26519@linux.ibm.com> <8bcc818b1b08850e109d1cde529ab98c4ed788df.camel@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8bcc818b1b08850e109d1cde529ab98c4ed788df.camel@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19062022-2213-0000-0000-000003A23447 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00011299; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000286; SDB=6.01220888; UDB=6.00642287; IPR=6.01002027; MB=3.00027398; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2019-06-20 22:16:08 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19062022-2214-0000-0000-00005EEEB679 Message-Id: <20190620221607.GA26519@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-06-20_15:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1906200158 Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 04:38:47PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 14:20 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 04:06:02PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > > > On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 13:53 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > And I have to ask... > > > > > > > > What did you do to test this change to kernel/softirq.c? My past > > > > attempts > > > > to do this sort of thing have always run afoul of open-coded BH > > > > transitions. > > > > > > Mostly rcutorture and loads such as kernel builds, on a debug > > > kernel. By > > > "open-coded BH transition" do you mean directly manipulating the preempt > > > count? That would already be broken on RT. > > > > OK, then maybe you guys have already done the needed cleanup work. Cool! > > Do you remember what code was doing such things? Grepping for the obvious > things doesn't turn up anything outside the softirq code, even in the > earlier non-RT kernels I checked. It was many years ago, and it is quite possible that I am conflating irqs with bh or some such. If it now works, it now works. > > But don't the additions of rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() want > > to be protected by "!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL)" or similar? > > This is already a separate PREEMPT_RT_FULL-specific implementation. Ah, sorry for the noise, then! Thanx, Paul