[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190712232749.GY26519@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 16:27:49 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
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 03:40:40PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:46:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:06:31PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Good point! At least as long as the lockdep splats list RCU-bh among
> > the locks held, which they did last I checked.
> >
> > Of course, you could make the same argument for getting rid of
> > rcu_sched_lock_map. Does it make sense to have the one without
> > the other?
>
> It probably makes it inconsistent in the least. I will add the check for
> the rcu_bh_lock_map in a separate patch, if that's Ok with you - since I also
> want to update the rcu_read_lock_bh_held() logic in the same patch.
>
> That rcu_read_lock_bh_held() could also just return !preemptible as Peter
> suggested for the bh case.
Although that seems reasonable, please check the call sites.
> > > Sorry I already sent out patches again before seeing your comment but I can
> > > rework and resend them based on any other suggestions.
> >
> > Not a problem!
>
> Thanks. Depending on whether there is any other feedback, I will work on the
> bh_ stuff as a separate patch on top of this series, or work it into the next
> series revision if I'm reposting. Hopefully that sounds Ok to you.
Agreed -- let's separate concerns. And promote bisectability.
Thanx, Paul
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.
