Re: [PATCH] rcu/tree: Fix self wakeups for grace period kthread

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

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:56:08AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 07:09:23 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 05:25:28PM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> > > On 3/12/19 7:20 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:  
> > > >On Fri,  8 Mar 2019 15:16:18 +0530
> > > >Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> > > >  
> > > >>Update the code to match the comment that self wakeup of
> > > >>grace period kthread is allowed from interrupt handler, and
> > > >>softirq handler, running in the grace period kthread's
> > > >>context. Present code allows self wakeups from all
> > > >>interrupt contexts - nmi, softirq and hardirq contexts.  
> > > >
> > > >That's not actually the issue. But it appears that we return if we
> > > >simply have BH disabled, which I don't think we want, and we don't care
> > > >about NMI as NMI should never call this code.
> > > >
> > > >I think your patch is correct, but the change log is not.  
> > 
> > How about this?
> > 
> > 	The current rcu_gp_kthread_wake() function uses in_interrupt()
> > 	and thus does a self-wakeup from all interrupt contexts,
> > 	including the pointless case where the GP kthread happens to be
> > 	running with bottom halves disabled, along with the impossible
> > 	case where the GP kthread is running within an NMI handler (you
> > 	are not supposed to invoke rcu_gp_kthread_wake() from within an
> > 	NMI handler.  This commit therefore replaces the in_interrupt()
> > 	with in_irq(), so that the self-wakeups happen only from handlers
> > 	for hardware interrupts and softirqs.  This also makes the code
> > 	match the comment.
> 
> Acked-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>

Applied, thank you!

							Thanx, Paul

> > > >-- Steve
> > > >  
> > > 
> > > Hi Steve, sorry, I don't understand fully, why we want to not return
> > > in BH disabled case. From the commit logs and lkml discussion, there
> > > is a case where GP kthread is interrupted in the wait event path and
> > > rcu_gp_kthread_wake() is called in softirq handler (I am not sure
> > > about interrupt handler case; how rcu_gp_kthread_wake() is called
> > > from that path).
> 
> BH disabled case isn't a case where the kthread is preempted. It's just
> that the kthread disabled BH, and thus we want to return.
> 
> -- Steve
>