linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2] rcu/nocb: Correct output rcuog/rcuop kthreads information

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <PH0PR11MB5880581A04571E129A07CA7BDAAE9@PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Sat, 18 Jun 2022 12:49:26 +0000
From:   "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
To:     "paulmck@...nel.org" <paulmck@...nel.org>
CC:     "frederic@...nel.org" <frederic@...nel.org>,
        "rcu@...r.kernel.org" <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] rcu/nocb: Correct output rcuog/rcuop kthreads
 information

On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 10:15:19PM +0800, Zqiang wrote:
> This commit make rcuog and rcuop thread information output in the 
> correct location.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
>
>Good catch, queued for review and testing, thank you!
>
>Ditto for the "rcu: Avoid reporting strict QSes from NMI context"
>patch.

Hi Paul, please remove this patch, the preempt_count() imply in_nmi()

Thanks
Zqiang

>
>As always, I wordsmithed both commit logs, so please check to see if I messed something up.
>
>						Thanx, Paul
>
> ---
>  v1->v2:
>  Only change commit information, the v1 is  [PATCH] rcu: Fix incorrect 
> judgment condition in show_rcu_nocb_state().
> 
>  kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h index 
> a8f574d8850d..f20aec4f4394 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> @@ -1452,8 +1452,8 @@ static void show_rcu_nocb_gp_state(struct rcu_data *rdp)
>  		(long)rdp->nocb_gp_seq,
>  		rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi, READ_ONCE(rdp->nocb_gp_loops),
>  		rdp->nocb_gp_kthread ? task_state_to_char(rdp->nocb_gp_kthread) : '.',
> -		rdp->nocb_cb_kthread ? (int)task_cpu(rdp->nocb_gp_kthread) : -1,
> -		show_rcu_should_be_on_cpu(rdp->nocb_cb_kthread));
> +		rdp->nocb_gp_kthread ? (int)task_cpu(rdp->nocb_gp_kthread) : -1,
> +		show_rcu_should_be_on_cpu(rdp->nocb_gp_kthread));
>  }
>  
>  /* Dump out nocb kthread state for the specified rcu_data structure. 
> */ @@ -1497,7 +1497,7 @@ static void show_rcu_nocb_state(struct rcu_data *rdp)
>  		".B"[!!rcu_cblist_n_cbs(&rdp->nocb_bypass)],
>  		rcu_segcblist_n_cbs(&rdp->cblist),
>  		rdp->nocb_cb_kthread ? task_state_to_char(rdp->nocb_cb_kthread) : '.',
> -		rdp->nocb_cb_kthread ? (int)task_cpu(rdp->nocb_gp_kthread) : -1,
> +		rdp->nocb_cb_kthread ? (int)task_cpu(rdp->nocb_cb_kthread) : -1,
>  		show_rcu_should_be_on_cpu(rdp->nocb_cb_kthread));
>  
>  	/* It is OK for GP kthreads to have GP state. */
> --
> 2.25.1
>