From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06FA630F93A
	for <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Tue,  2 Dec 2025 10:18:34 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201
ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116;
	t=1764670715; cv=none; b=F++8sz7/HlyPShO2nlxJfzLgojdh1h6/hpxdO6RosSoqIrNmaPIvchhxTunDhziEIklUWKT9ZFDuQM+4kpFefbE1i+cYwivwQ5oskjJeRoGMlZtfJNedt9STc4QkE7uFGn2nL7XJQf9M/XqmCDr86v12/zjQPPKDeRTGcJpi+Gc=
ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org;
	s=arc-20240116; t=1764670715; c=relaxed/simple;
	bh=Bj8pPHlHUO/JCeBFbbF/6UjWAZwRQR03mw0y8I04PKw=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:
	 Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=I5iH/Z7x4oLD+68JwMxYycfEX+Y26GRr39/qFAAwX51wjm74aoq8BjCPiv8BTlT6yjiABimer3bm8B3w9ASeqxIxFTzFv3+kL3rFX/N2PZEAINtFktsJE9YYIOBHzlsq9z7gsh/sDoEmtu+NitubS63VB6GCwdr2XVNh3KT2BJk=
ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=iTtzUH9v; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org;
	dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="iTtzUH9v"
Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8FA70C4CEF1;
	Tue,  2 Dec 2025 10:18:33 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org;
	s=k20201202; t=1764670714;
	bh=Bj8pPHlHUO/JCeBFbbF/6UjWAZwRQR03mw0y8I04PKw=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From;
	b=iTtzUH9vbW+Igc38jUA2iJGPu4hwSdZ5N3bskf1eS1Z6BUbR9V6YFBn8GSuecWr81
	 ZOy2y4NJ//tQqe7bazP3EC65SaNUnd+EtVDeaNN1PVvX52WiVO6dUD7KsULidUNofC
	 fHgNJgWMO5MO/wRn2HvPVDq0n6FqZeeSuwvPj5u0La4BD7uRXyUcec714qYS27jK6O
	 NCJUkv01I46I9LTcizWBD5cTkWlluYXRf9waQgBtANJnCrRFOjDmNNSXL+9MoiaUOK
	 lFxHfrCk7bJtZ20eI6E07tyr7z6SwIwVmzVs+nRyqx3yGggoOQTwGoXVz12lkdyKqx
	 PWft+s2QwdBOw==
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2025 11:18:30 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] seqlock, procfs: Match scoped_seqlock_read()
 critical section vs. RCU ordering in do_task_stat() to do_io_accounting()
Message-ID: <aS689gFv5gi1qTwF@gmail.com>
References: <aS5mdHYhHi9Gi5-r@gmail.com>
 <aS6VX56DuPWY3bXk@redhat.com>
 <aS6rwnaPbHFCdHp1@gmail.com>
 <aS6vpLzte-9LqwYQ@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:linux-kernel+subscribe@vger.kernel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:linux-kernel+unsubscribe@vger.kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <aS6vpLzte-9LqwYQ@redhat.com>


* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 12/02, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 12/02, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > RCU read-lock should not nest inside a read-seqlock
> > > > irqsave ->stats_lock IRQs-off critical section,
> > >
> > > Hmm... I agree with this patch, but is it actually wrong?
> > >
> > > I thought that rcu_read_lock/unlock is safe under spin_lock_irq...
> >
> > Yeah, true - it's allowed and not a bug,
> 
> OK, thanks ;)
> 
> > merely
> > discouraged inside irqs-off sections if it can be
> > avoided, and it's an inconsistency versus
> > do_io_accounting().
> 
> Yes, yes, agreed
> 
> > How about the -v2 phrasing below? I also removed the
> > Fixes tags.
> 
> Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>

Thanks Oleg!

	Ingo