From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: shemminger@vyatta.com, mroos@linux.ee,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: suspicious RCU usage warnings in 3.3.0
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:54:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120412045428.GB2497@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120411.210843.716144028821174908.davem@davemloft.net>
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 09:08:43PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:45:07 -0700
>
> > If I am confused about the simple function call, and if control is really
> > passing via an interrupt or exception, then rcu_irq_enter() should be
> > called on entry to the interrupt or exception and rcu_irq_exit() should
> > be called on exit.
>
> Hmm, it seems the convention changed such that platforms aren't
> supposed to invoke do_softirq() from their trap return trap any more.
> It's handled completely by irq_exit().
>
> When did that start happening? :-)
Heh! It appears that git doesn't go back far enough for me to find the
answer to that question. ;-)
> Anyways I bet that's the problem, sparc64 invokes do_softirq() in it's
> trap return path if softirqs are pending, and that doesn't do any
> of the RCU frobbing you mention.
The following untested patch that probably does not even build is offered
up for your amusement. I don't know enough about SPARC's needs for
alignment, handling of branch-delay slots, and so on for this to have
any chance of working, but hey! ;-)
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
sparc64: Eliminate obsolete __handle_softirq() function
The invocation of softirq is now handled by irq_exit(), so there is no
need for sparc64 to invoke it on the trap-return path. In fact, doing so
is a bug because if the trap occurred in the idle loop, this invocation
can result in lockdep-RCU failures. The problem is that RCU ignores idle
CPUs, and the sparc64 trap-return path to the softirq handlers fails to
tell RCU that the CPU must be considered non-idle while those handlers
are executing. This means that RCU is ignoring any RCU read-side critical
sections in those handlers, which in turn means that RCU-protected data
can be yanked out from under those read-side critical sections.
The shiny new lockdep-RCU ability to detect RCU read-side critical sections
that RCU is ignoring located this problem.
The fix is straightforward: Make sparc64 stop manually invoking the
softirq handlers.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
rtrap_64.S | 7 -------
1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/rtrap_64.S b/arch/sparc/kernel/rtrap_64.S
index 77f1b95..9171fc2 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/rtrap_64.S
+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/rtrap_64.S
@@ -20,11 +20,6 @@
.text
.align 32
-__handle_softirq:
- call do_softirq
- nop
- ba,a,pt %xcc, __handle_softirq_continue
- nop
__handle_preemption:
call schedule
wrpr %g0, RTRAP_PSTATE, %pstate
@@ -89,9 +84,7 @@ rtrap:
cmp %l1, 0
/* mm/ultra.S:xcall_report_regs KNOWS about this load. */
- bne,pn %icc, __handle_softirq
ldx [%sp + PTREGS_OFF + PT_V9_TSTATE], %l1
-__handle_softirq_continue:
rtrap_xcall:
sethi %hi(0xf << 20), %l4
and %l1, %l4, %l4
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-12 4:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-28 8:45 suspicious RCU usage warnings in 3.3.0 Meelis Roos
2012-03-28 21:45 ` David Miller
2012-04-11 15:08 ` Meelis Roos
2012-04-11 23:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-12 0:10 ` Stephen Hemminger
2012-04-12 0:18 ` David Miller
2012-04-12 0:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-12 1:03 ` David Miller
2012-04-12 1:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-12 1:08 ` David Miller
2012-04-12 4:54 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2012-04-13 11:55 ` mroos
2012-04-13 13:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-13 14:55 ` David Miller
2012-04-13 16:30 ` 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=20120412045428.GB2497@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mroos@linux.ee \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shemminger@vyatta.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).