[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210622175855.GE4397@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 10:58:55 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>
Cc: josh@...htriplett.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
joel@...lfernandes.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, urezki@...il.com, frederic@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: update: Check rcu_bh_lock_map state in
rcu_read_lock_bh_held
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 05:35:21PM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> In addition to irq and softirq state, check rcu_bh_lock_map
> state, to decide whether RCU bh lock is held.
>
> Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>
My initial reaction was that "in_softirq() || irqs_disabled()" covers
it because rcu_read_lock_bh() disables BH. But you are right that it
does seem a bit silly to ignore lockdep.
So would it also make sense to have a WARN_ON_ONCE() if lockdep claims
we are under rcu_read_lock_bh() protection, but "in_softirq() ||
irqs_disabled()" think otherwise?
Thanx, Paul
> ---
> kernel/rcu/update.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> index c21b38c..d416f1c 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> @@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ int rcu_read_lock_bh_held(void)
>
> if (rcu_read_lock_held_common(&ret))
> return ret;
> - return in_softirq() || irqs_disabled();
> + return lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map) || in_softirq() || irqs_disabled();
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_bh_held);
>
> --
> QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
> hosted by The Linux Foundation
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists