[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190815152442.GB12078@google.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 11:24:42 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 -rcu] workqueue: Convert for_each_wq to use built-in
list check
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 07:57:49AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:18:42AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > list_for_each_entry_rcu now has support to check for RCU reader sections
> > as well as lock. Just use the support in it, instead of explicitly
> > checking in the caller.
>
> ...
>
> > #define assert_rcu_or_wq_mutex_or_pool_mutex(wq) \
> > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_held() && \
> > !lockdep_is_held(&wq->mutex) && \
>
> Can't you also get rid of this macro?
Could be. But that should be a different patch. I am only cleaning up the RCU
list lockdep checking in this series since the series introduces that
concept). Please feel free to send a patch for the same.
Arguably, keeping the macro around also can be beneficial in the future.
> It's used in one place:
>
> static struct pool_workqueue *unbound_pwq_by_node(struct workqueue_struct *wq,
> int node)
> {
> assert_rcu_or_wq_mutex_or_pool_mutex(wq);
>
> /*
> * XXX: @node can be NUMA_NO_NODE if CPU goes offline while a
> * delayed item is pending. The plan is to keep CPU -> NODE
> * mapping valid and stable across CPU on/offlines. Once that
> * happens, this workaround can be removed.
> */
> if (unlikely(node == NUMA_NO_NODE))
> return wq->dfl_pwq;
>
> return rcu_dereference_raw(wq->numa_pwq_tbl[node]);
> }
>
> Shouldn't we delete that assert and use
>
> + return rcu_dereference_check(wq->numa_pwq_tbl[node],
> + lockdep_is_held(&wq->mutex) ||
> + lockdep_is_held(&wq_pool_mutex));
Makes sense. This API also does sparse checking. Also hopefully no sparse
issues show up because rcu_dereference_check() but anyone such issues should
be fixed as well.
thanks,
- Joel
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists