[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170418003429.wa7qvhiy3vvccbxw@x>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 17:34:30 -0700
From: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 tip/core/rcu 04/39] srcu: Check for tardy grace-period
activity in cleanup_srcu_struct()
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 05:33:32PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 04:44:51PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Users of SRCU are obliged to complete all grace-period activity before
> > invoking cleanup_srcu_struct(). This means that all calls to either
> > synchronize_srcu() or synchronize_srcu_expedited() must have returned,
> > and all calls to call_srcu() must have returned, and the last call to
> > call_srcu() must have been followed by a call to srcu_barrier().
> > Furthermore, the caller must have done something to prevent any
> > further calls to synchronize_srcu(), synchronize_srcu_expedited(),
> > and call_srcu().
> >
> > Therefore, if there has ever been an invocation of call_srcu() on
> > the srcu_struct in question, the sequence of events must be as
> > follows:
> >
> > 1. Prevent any further calls to call_srcu().
> > 2. Wait for any pre-existing call_srcu() invocations to return.
> > 3. Invoke srcu_barrier().
> > 4. It is now safe to invoke cleanup_srcu_struct().
> >
> > On the other hand, if there has ever been a call to synchronize_srcu()
> > or synchronize_srcu_expedited(), the sequence of events must be as
> > follows:
> >
> > 1. Prevent any further calls to synchronize_srcu() or
> > synchronize_srcu_expedited().
> > 2. Wait for any pre-existing synchronize_srcu() or
> > synchronize_srcu_expedited() invocations to return.
> > 3. It is now safe to invoke cleanup_srcu_struct().
> >
> > If there have been calls to all both types of functions (call_srcu()
> > and either of synchronize_srcu() and synchronize_srcu_expedited()), then
> > the caller must do the first three steps of the call_srcu() procedure
> > above and the first two steps of the synchronize_s*() procedure above,
> > and only then invoke cleanup_srcu_struct().
>
> This commit message clearly explains the correct sequence for the
> client, but not which aspects of this the change now enforces. Some of
> the steps above remain the responsibility of the caller, while the
> callee now checks more of them. Could you add something at the end
> explaining the change and what it enforces?
More importantly, perhaps this explanation could find its way into the
documentation of cleanup_srcu_struct?
> > Reported-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> With the above change:
> Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
>
> > kernel/rcu/srcu.c | 5 +++++
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcu.c b/kernel/rcu/srcu.c
> > index ba41a5d04b49..6beeba7b0b67 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/srcu.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcu.c
> > @@ -261,6 +261,11 @@ void cleanup_srcu_struct(struct srcu_struct *sp)
> > {
> > if (WARN_ON(srcu_readers_active(sp)))
> > return; /* Leakage unless caller handles error. */
> > + if (WARN_ON(!rcu_all_batches_empty(sp)))
> > + return; /* Leakage unless caller handles error. */
> > + flush_delayed_work(&sp->work);
> > + if (WARN_ON(sp->running))
> > + return; /* Caller forgot to stop doing call_srcu()? */
> > free_percpu(sp->per_cpu_ref);
> > sp->per_cpu_ref = NULL;
> > }
> > --
> > 2.5.2
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists