[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3194474.xhKMNsEZRq@aspire.rjw.lan>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 00:05:08 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"moderated list:INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS"
<intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, keescook@...omium.org,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
xdp-newbies@...r.kernel.org, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/5] sched/cpufreq: Fix incorrect RCU API usage
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 6:49:40 AM CET Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> Recently I added an RCU annotation check to rcu_assign_pointer(). All
> pointers assigned to RCU protected data are to be annotated with __rcu
> inorder to be able to use rcu_assign_pointer() similar to checks in
> other RCU APIs.
>
> This resulted in a sparse error: kernel//sched/cpufreq.c:41:9: sparse:
> error: incompatible types in comparison expression (different address
> spaces)
>
> Fix this by using the correct APIs for RCU accesses. This will
> potentially avoid any future bugs in the code. If it is felt that RCU
> protection is not needed here, then the rcu_assign_pointer call can be
> dropped and replaced with, say, WRITE_ONCE or smp_store_release. Or, may
> be we add a new API to do it. But calls rcu_assign_pointer seems an
> abuse of the RCU API unless RCU is being used.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> ---
> kernel/sched/cpufreq.c | 8 ++++++--
> kernel/sched/sched.h | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq.c
> index 22bd8980f32f..c9aeb3bf5dc2 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq.c
> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
> */
> #include "sched.h"
>
> -DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct update_util_data *, cpufreq_update_util_data);
> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct update_util_data __rcu *, cpufreq_update_util_data);
>
> /**
> * cpufreq_add_update_util_hook - Populate the CPU's update_util_data pointer.
> @@ -34,8 +34,12 @@ void cpufreq_add_update_util_hook(int cpu, struct update_util_data *data,
> if (WARN_ON(!data || !func))
> return;
>
> - if (WARN_ON(per_cpu(cpufreq_update_util_data, cpu)))
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + if (WARN_ON(rcu_dereference(per_cpu(cpufreq_update_util_data, cpu)))) {
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> return;
> + }
> + rcu_read_unlock();
As Steve said, this is not a read-side critical section, so the rcu_read_lock()
and rcu_read_unlock() don't help.
But rcu_access_pointer() should work here AFAICS.
Cheers,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists