[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190712170631.GA111598@google.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 13:06:31 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
c0d1n61at3@...il.com, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
edumazet@...gle.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, keescook@...omium.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, neilb@...e.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, oleg@...hat.com,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, will@...nel.org,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] rcu: Add support for consolidated-RCU reader
checking
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 09:45:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:10:51AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:11:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:43:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > > +int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + int lockdep_opinion = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled())
> > > > + return 1;
> > > > + if (!rcu_is_watching())
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > + if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online())
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Preemptible RCU flavor */
> > > > + if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map))
> > >
> > > you forgot debug_locks here.
> >
> > Actually, it turns out debug_locks checking is not even needed. If
> > debug_locks == 0, then debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() returns 0 and we would not
> > get to this point.
> >
> > > > + return 1;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* BH flavor */
> > > > + if (in_softirq() || irqs_disabled())
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I'd put irqs_disabled() under BH, also this entire
> > > condition is superfluous, see below.
> > >
> > > > + return 1;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Sched flavor */
> > > > + if (debug_locks)
> > > > + lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map);
> > > > + return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible();
> > >
> > > that !preemptible() turns into:
> > >
> > > !(preempt_count()==0 && !irqs_disabled())
> > >
> > > which is:
> > >
> > > preempt_count() != 0 || irqs_disabled()
> > >
> > > and already includes irqs_disabled() and in_softirq().
> > >
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > So maybe something lke:
> > >
> > > if (debug_locks && (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) ||
> > > lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map)))
> > > return true;
> >
> > Agreed, I will do it this way (without the debug_locks) like:
> >
> > ---8<-----------------------
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > index ba861d1716d3..339aebc330db 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > @@ -296,27 +296,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_bh_held);
> >
> > int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void)
> > {
> > - int lockdep_opinion = 0;
> > -
> > if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled())
> > return 1;
> > if (!rcu_is_watching())
> > return 0;
> > if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online())
> > return 0;
> > -
> > - /* Preemptible RCU flavor */
> > - if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map))
> > - return 1;
> > -
> > - /* BH flavor */
> > - if (in_softirq() || irqs_disabled())
> > - return 1;
> > -
> > - /* Sched flavor */
> > - if (debug_locks)
> > - lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map);
> > - return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible();
> > + if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) || lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map))
>
> OK, I will bite... Why not also lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map)?
Hmm, I was borrowing the strategy from rcu_read_lock_bh_held() which does not
check for a lock held in this map.
Honestly, even lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map) seems unnecessary per-se
since !preemptible() will catch that? rcu_read_lock_sched() disables
preemption already, so lockdep's opinion of the matter seems redundant there.
Sorry I already sent out patches again before seeing your comment but I can
rework and resend them based on any other suggestions.
thanks,
- Joel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
