[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190321132603.GS4102@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 06:26:03 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] rcu: Allow to eliminate softirq processing from
rcutree
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 09:27:37AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-03-20 16:46:01 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Thank you! I reverted v2 and applied this one with the same sort of
> > update. Testing is going well thus far aside from my failing to add
> > the required "=0" after the rcutree.use_softirq. I will probably not
> > be the only one who will run afoul of this, so I updated the commit log
> > and the documentation accordingly, as shown below.
>
> perfect, thank you.
>
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > index f46b4af96ab9..b807204ffd83 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > @@ -629,7 +609,10 @@ static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
> > /* Need to defer quiescent state until everything is enabled. */
> > if (irqs_were_disabled) {
> > /* Enabling irqs does not reschedule, so... */
> > - raise_softirq_irqoff(RCU_SOFTIRQ);
> > + if (!use_softirq)
>
> that exclamation mark needs to go :/
That might explain some of the failures in TREE01, TREE02, TREE03, and
TREE09. TREE01 got a NULL pointer dereference, but in __do_softirq().
So I suspect that this was related. Ditto for TREE02, TREE03, and TREE09.
These also all have CONFIG_PREEMPT=y, and are the only ones run by default
that are set up this way. (Well, so do SRCU-P, TASKS01, and TASKS03, but
they are torturing other forms of RCU.)
Anyway, I applied your fix above and will rerun. The failures happened
within a few seconds in all cases, so a short run should cover this.
Once I get good rcutorture runs, I will ask you to run a heavy-duty run.
Once that passes, I will look at your changes in more detail.
Thanx, Paul
> > + raise_softirq_irqoff(RCU_SOFTIRQ);
> > + else
> > + invoke_rcu_core();
> > } else {
> > /* Enabling BH or preempt does reschedule, so... */
> > set_tsk_need_resched(current);
>
> Sebastian
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists