[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110331164107.GH2258@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:41:07 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@...il.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
andi@...stfloor.org, dave@....org, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86, mce: Fix RCU lockdep from mce_poll()
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:03:48PM +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> However on my machine - I do not a see a difference ?
>
> I've this patch applied - and it still gives me the same error.
> (using 6aba74f2791287ec407e0f92487a725a25908067 and this patch)
>
> Here are my RCU config options:
>
> # grep RCU .config
> # RCU Subsystem
> CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU=y
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y
> CONFIG_RCU_TRACE=y
> CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT=64
> # CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_EXACT is not set
> CONFIG_TREE_RCU_TRACE=y
> CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y
> # CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_REPEATEDLY is not set
> # CONFIG_SPARSE_RCU_POINTER is not set
> # CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST is not set
> CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_DETECTOR=y
> CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_TIMEOUT=60
> CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_DETECTOR_RUNNABLE=y
> CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_VERBOSE=y
What idiot created that patch, anyway??? ;-)
Here is a patch that is much more likely to do something useful.
Could you please test it? It is on top of the patch you just tested.
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
rcu: create new rcu_access_index() and use in mce
The MCE subsystem needs to sample an RCU-protected index outside of
any protection for that index. If this was a pointer, we would use
rcu_access_pointer(), but there is no corresponding rcu_access_index().
This commit therefore creates an rcu_access_index() and applies it
to MCE.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
index a2d664f..3385ea2 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
@@ -1626,7 +1626,7 @@ out:
static unsigned int mce_poll(struct file *file, poll_table *wait)
{
poll_wait(file, &mce_wait, wait);
- if (rcu_dereference_index_check(mcelog.next, rcu_read_lock_sched_held()))
+ if (rcu_access_index(mcelog.next))
return POLLIN | POLLRDNORM;
if (!mce_apei_read_done && apei_check_mce())
return POLLIN | POLLRDNORM;
diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
index af56148..ff422d2 100644
--- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
+++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
@@ -339,6 +339,12 @@ extern int rcu_my_thread_group_empty(void);
((typeof(*p) __force __kernel *)(p)); \
})
+#define __rcu_access_index(p, space) \
+ ({ \
+ typeof(p) _________p1 = ACCESS_ONCE(p); \
+ rcu_dereference_sparse(p, space); \
+ (_________p1); \
+ })
#define __rcu_dereference_index_check(p, c) \
({ \
typeof(p) _________p1 = ACCESS_ONCE(p); \
@@ -429,6 +435,20 @@ extern int rcu_my_thread_group_empty(void);
#define rcu_dereference_raw(p) rcu_dereference_check(p, 1) /*@@@ needed? @@@*/
/**
+ * rcu_access_index() - fetch RCU index with no dereferencing
+ * @p: The index to read
+ *
+ * Return the value of the specified RCU-protected index, but omit the
+ * smp_read_barrier_depends() and keep the ACCESS_ONCE(). This is useful
+ * when the value of this index is accessed, but the index is not
+ * dereferenced, for example, when testing an RCU-protected index against
+ * -1. Although rcu_access_index() may also be used in cases where
+ * update-side locks prevent the value of the index from changing, you
+ * should instead use rcu_dereference_index_protected() for this use case.
+ */
+#define rcu_access_index(p) __rcu_access_index((p), __rcu)
+
+/**
* rcu_dereference_index_check() - rcu_dereference for indices with debug checking
* @p: The pointer to read, prior to dereferencing
* @c: The conditions under which the dereference will take place
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists