[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YQvbcvxh7u7sU-VjdAYUWpxDzdH-68qk_AjY54hMjNYMg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2022 16:02:35 -0500
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: paulmck@...nel.org
Cc: "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>,
"frederic@...nel.org" <frederic@...nel.org>,
"quic_neeraju@...cinc.com" <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
"rcu@...r.kernel.org" <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Fix opposite might_sleep() check in rcu_blocking_is_gp()
On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 2:44 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
[...]
> > > > If not, I would do something like this:
> > > >
> > > > ---8<-----------------------
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > index 79aea7df4345..23c2303de9f4 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > @@ -3435,11 +3435,12 @@ static int rcu_blocking_is_gp(void)
> > > > {
> > > > int ret;
> > > >
> > > > + might_sleep(); /* Check for RCU read-side critical section. */
> > > > +
> > > > // Invoking preempt_model_*() too early gets a splat.
> > > > if (rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_INACTIVE ||
> > > > preempt_model_full() || preempt_model_rt())
> > > > return rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_INACTIVE;
>
> If the scheduler is inactive (early boot with interrupts disabled),
> we return here.
>
> > > > - might_sleep(); /* Check for RCU read-side critical section. */
>
> We get here only if the scheduler has started, and even then only in
> preemption-disabled kernels.
>
> Or is you concern that the might_sleep() never gets invoked in kernels
> with preemption enabled? Fixing that would require a slightly different
> patch, though.
>
> Or should I have waited until tomorrow to respond to this email? ;-)
No, I think you are quite right. I was not referring to
rcu_sleep_check(), but rather the following prints in might_sleep(). I
see an unconditional call to might_sleep() from kvfree_call_rcu() but
not one from synchronize_rcu() which can also sleep.
But I see your point, early boot code has interrupts disabled, but can
still totally call synchronize_rcu() when the scheduler is INACTIVE.
And might_sleep() might bitterly complain. Thanks for the
clarification.
pr_err("BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at %s:%d\n",
file, line);
pr_err("in_atomic(): %d, irqs_disabled(): %d, non_block: %d, pid: %d,
name: %s\n",
in_atomic(), irqs_disabled(), current->non_block_count,
current->pid, current->comm);
pr_err("preempt_count: %x, expected: %x\n", preempt_count(),
offsets & MIGHT_RESCHED_PREEMPT_MASK);
Thanks,
- Joel
> > > > /*
> > > > * If the rcu_state.n_online_cpus counter is equal to one,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists