linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH rcu 2/6] rcu: Clarify rcu_is

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

Message-ID: <998db46d-9c76-a3c5-e7c5-b7adf1770352@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2023 21:56:38 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     paulmck@...nel.org
Cc:     rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...a.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rcu 2/6] rcu: Clarify rcu_is_watching() kernel-doc comment

Hi Paul,

On 7/18/23 14:12, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 08:52:30AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> On 7/17/23 14:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> Make it clear that this function always returns either true or false
>>> without other planned failure modes.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
>>> ---
>>>    kernel/rcu/tree.c | 12 ++++++++----
>>>    1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>>> index 1449cb69a0e0..fae9b4e29c93 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>>> @@ -679,10 +679,14 @@ static void rcu_disable_urgency_upon_qs(struct rcu_data *rdp)
>>>    /**
>>>     * rcu_is_watching - see if RCU thinks that the current CPU is not idle
>>
>> Would it be better to modify the 'not idle' to 'not idle from an RCU
>> viewpoint'? This matches the comments in ct_nmi_enter() as well.
> 
> We have the "if RCU thinks that" earlier.
> 
> But maybe something like this?
> 
>   * rcu_is_watching - RCU read-side critical sections permitted on current CPU?
> 

Yes, that's better.

>>>     *
>>> - * Return true if RCU is watching the running CPU, which means that this
>>> - * CPU can safely enter RCU read-side critical sections.  In other words,
>>> - * if the current CPU is not in its idle loop or is in an interrupt or
>>> - * NMI handler, return true.
>>> + * Return @true if RCU is watching the running CPU and @false otherwise.
>>> + * An @true return means that this CPU can safely enter RCU read-side
>>> + * critical sections.
>>> + *
>>> + * More specifically, if the current CPU is not deep within its idle
>>> + * loop, return @true.  Note that rcu_is_watching() will return @true if
>>> + * invoked from an interrupt or NMI handler, even if that interrupt or
>>> + * NMI interrupted the CPU while it was deep within its idle loop.
>>
>> But it is more than the idle loop, for ex. NOHZ_FULL CPUs with single task
>> running could be idle from RCU's viewpoint? Could that be clarified more?
> 
> Perhaps something like this?
> 
>   * Although calls to rcu_is_watching() from most parts of the kernel
>   * will return @true, there are important exceptions.  For example, if the
>   * current CPU is deep within its idle loop, in kernel entry/exit code,
>   * or offline, rcu_is_watching() will return @false.
> 
> (Where nohz_full CPUs are covered by kernel entry/exit code.)

To me, "kernel exit" does not immediately make the nohz_full CPU case 
obvious. But yes, your suggestion is an improvement so we can go with 
that. :)

Also because we agree on the changes, for next revision:
Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>

thanks,

  - Joel