Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/6] Check for use of RCU from dyntick-idle mode

[Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 09:38:48AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 06:03:32PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 08:43:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Hello!
> > > 
> > > This set of patches adds checks for use of RCU from "extended quiescent
> > > states" such as dyntick-idle mode.  Such use is grossly illegal because
> > > RCU by definition ignores CPUs that are in extended quiescent states.
> > > In the case of dyntick-idle mode, the only way for RCU to avoid ignoring
> > > such CPUs would be to wake them up periodically, which would defeat the
> > > whole purpose of dyntick-idle mode.
> > > 
> > > The good news is that Frederic got this effort started.  The bad news is
> > > that there are several cases where RCU read-side critical sections appear
> > > in dyntick-idle mode.
> > 
> > Ok, let me send to you the patch that splits up rcu/tickless logic and I'll try
> > to fix up what you reported to me in ppc.
> 
> Very good, thank you!
> 
> > BTW, are you aware of other cases? You mentioned "several" :)
> 
> PowerPC's hypercall-exit trace event will also cause this complaint.

Ok looking at this.

> Plus I thought you saw some others.

Nope, mine were spurious. In my v1 rcu_dereference_check warned if rcu read lock
wasn't held but didn't handle the rest of the conditional (another lock held or
simply 1 in rcu_dereference_raw()).

In the v3, the one you applied, they legitimately disappeared.