Re: [PATCH v2] srcu: Fix WARN_ON() for timer_delete_sync() in cleanup_srcu_struct()

[Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 06:55:22PM +0800, Zqiang wrote:
> The WARN_ON() for timer_delete_sync() means that the caller forgot to
> call srcu_barrier() before cleanup. however, it still can trigger even
> when srcu_barrier() was properly called.
> 
> When a SRCU grace period ends and ss_state < SRCU_SIZE_BIG, the mask=~0
> causes delay_work timer be queued on every online CPU regardless of
> whether it's sdp->srcu_cblist has callbacks. srcu_barrier() only wait
> srcu_barrier_head's callbacks to complete, however, the srcu_barrier_head
> will not be inserted into an empty sdp->srcu_cblist. after that, when
> cleanup_srcu_struct() finds a pending delay_work timer on a CPU with no
> callbacks, triggering a false positive.
> 
> This commit therefore add rcu_segcblist_n_cbs() to WARN_ON(), make the
> warning triggers only when the timer is still pending and there are actual
> outstanding callbacks.
> 
> Fixes: 05c3e88488ed ("srcu: Queue sdp->work when the delay timer is successfully deleted")
> Reported-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com> 
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202608060833.bce92909-lkp@intel.com/ 
> Tested-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev>
> ---
>  kernel/rcu/srcutree.c | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> index 35fface51d50..090dddfc7463 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> @@ -753,8 +753,9 @@ void cleanup_srcu_struct(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
>  
>  		// Call srcu_barrier() before this cleanup_srcu_struct()
>  		// to avoid triggering this WARN_ON().
> -		if (WARN_ON(timer_delete_sync(&sdp->delay_work)) &&
> -					rcu_cpu_beenfullyonline(sdp->cpu))
> +		if (WARN_ON(timer_delete_sync(&sdp->delay_work) &&
> +			rcu_segcblist_n_cbs(&sdp->srcu_cblist)) &&
> +				rcu_cpu_beenfullyonline(sdp->cpu))

This is quite hard to read, mainly with this indentation.

You probably want to rewrite the checks , otherwise the indentation
should be something like, which is horrible (although correct?):

	if (WARN_ON(timer_delete_sync(&sdp->delay_work) &&
	            rcu_segcblist_n_cbs(&sdp->srcu_cblist)) &&
	    rcu_cpu_beenfullyonline(sdp->cpu))

Would something like this work?

	if (rcu_cpu_beenfullyonline(sdp->cpu) &&
	    WARN_ON(timer_delete_sync(&sdp->delay_work) &&
	            rcu_segcblist_n_cbs(&sdp->srcu_cblist)))