[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1512157320-23205-5-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 11:41:59 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 5/6] rcu: Add comment giving debug strategy for double call_rcu()
The following statement has for some reason proven non-intuitive:
WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_segcblist_empty(&rdp->cblist) != (count == 0));
This commit therefore adds a comment that states that this warning
usually triggers in response to a double call_rcu(), which is sort
of like a double free. The comment also suggests building with
CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD=y to track down the double call_rcu().
Reported-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index 70c48c279323..a63b14ba3a44 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -2789,6 +2789,11 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_data *rdp)
rdp->n_force_qs_snap = rsp->n_force_qs;
} else if (count < rdp->qlen_last_fqs_check - qhimark)
rdp->qlen_last_fqs_check = count;
+
+ /*
+ * The following usually indicates a double call_rcu(). To track
+ * this down, try building with CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD=y.
+ */
WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_segcblist_empty(&rdp->cblist) != (count == 0));
local_irq_restore(flags);
--
2.5.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists