[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200421162452.GV20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 18:24:52 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
joel@...lfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix call walk_tg_tree_from() without hold
rcu_lock
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 08:43:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:52:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 08:10:08PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > The walk_tg_tree_from() caller must hold rcu_lock,
> >
> > Not quite; with the RCU unification done 'recently' having preemption
> > disabled is sufficient. AFAICT preemption is disabled.
> >
> > In fact; and I mentioned this to someone the other day, perhaps Joel; we
> > can go and delete a whole bunch of rcu_read_lock() from the scheduler --
> > basically undo all the work we did after RCU was split many years ago.
>
> "If only I knew then what I know now..."
>
> Then again, I suspect that we all have ample opportunity to use that
> particular old phrase. ;-)
Quite so; I'm just fearing that rcu-lockdep annotation stuff. IIRC that
doesn't (nor can it, in general) consider the implicit preempt-disable
from locks and such for !PREEMPT builds.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists