From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@gmail.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, RCU <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
Cheung Wall <zzqq0103.hey@gmail.com>,
Neeraj upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sony.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] rcu: Use _full() API to debug synchronize_rcu()
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 12:48:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z5N9_EafVhSfE6nA@pc636> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ea7d8677-f81e-4590-9716-23ea41597873@paulmck-laptop>
On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 01:52:57PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 07:58:28PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > Switch for using of get_state_synchronize_rcu_full() and
> > poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full() pair for debug a normal
> > synchronize_rcu() call.
> >
> > Just using "not" full APIs to identify if a grace period
> > is passed or not might lead to a false kernel splat.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/rcupdate_wait.h | 4 ++++
> > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 8 +++-----
> > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate_wait.h b/include/linux/rcupdate_wait.h
> > index f9bed3d3f78d..a16fc2a9a7d7 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/rcupdate_wait.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate_wait.h
> > @@ -16,6 +16,10 @@
> > struct rcu_synchronize {
> > struct rcu_head head;
> > struct completion completion;
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU
> > + /* This is for testing. */
> > + struct rcu_gp_oldstate oldstate;
> > +#endif
> > };
> > void wakeme_after_rcu(struct rcu_head *head);
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index 2795d6b5109c..0ae90089ef09 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -1612,12 +1612,10 @@ static void rcu_sr_normal_complete(struct llist_node *node)
> > {
> > struct rcu_synchronize *rs = container_of(
> > (struct rcu_head *) node, struct rcu_synchronize, head);
> > - unsigned long oldstate = (unsigned long) rs->head.func;
> >
> > WARN_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_RCU) &&
> > - !poll_state_synchronize_rcu(oldstate),
> > - "A full grace period is not passed yet: %lu",
> > - rcu_seq_diff(get_state_synchronize_rcu(), oldstate));
> > + !poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full(&rs->oldstate),
> > + "A full grace period is not passed yet!\n");
>
> Looks good, but why not also continue printing out the required
> grace-period sequence number? Yes, there would need to be helper
> sprintf()-style functions to paper over the difference between Tiny RCU
> and Tree RCU. ;-)
>
Uhh :) Do we have rcu_seq_diff() for a _full() API? Looks like not :)
It contains both, rgos_norm and rgos_exp! Take a delta of both?
--
Uladzislau Rezki
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-24 11:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-23 18:58 [PATCH 1/4] rcutorture: Allow a negative value for nfakewriters Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2025-01-23 18:58 ` [PATCH 2/4] torture: Remove CONFIG_NR_CPUS configuration Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2025-01-23 20:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-24 11:41 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-01-24 15:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-24 17:21 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-01-24 17:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-24 17:48 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-01-24 19:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-27 13:27 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-01-27 14:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-27 15:42 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-01-27 16:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-27 17:26 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-01-27 18:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-27 18:31 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-01-27 19:24 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-01-27 20:37 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-01-28 0:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-28 12:17 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-01-28 12:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-28 14:34 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-01-28 18:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-28 20:57 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-01-23 18:58 ` [PATCH 3/4] rcu: Update TREE05.boot to test normal synchronize_rcu() Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2025-01-23 20:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-23 18:58 ` [PATCH 4/4] rcu: Use _full() API to debug synchronize_rcu() Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2025-01-23 21:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-24 11:48 ` Uladzislau Rezki [this message]
2025-01-24 15:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-28 20:55 ` [PATCH 1/4] rcutorture: Allow a negative value for nfakewriters Uladzislau Rezki
2025-01-28 21:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=Z5N9_EafVhSfE6nA@pc636 \
--to=urezki@gmail.com \
--cc=Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleksiy.avramchenko@sony.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zzqq0103.hey@gmail.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox