[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <31070aab-8665-44c4-8950-0631a777ef44@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 15:39:42 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Yun Levi <ppbuk5246@...il.com>
Cc: frederic@...nel.org, quic_neeraju@...cinc.com,
joel@...lfernandes.org, osh@...htriplett.org, boqun.feng@...il.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, qiang.zhang1211@...il.com,
rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: remove unnecessary check cpu_no_qs.norm on
rcu_report_qs_rdp
On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 09:14:28PM +0100, Yun Levi wrote:
> Hi Paul.
>
> > Suppose that the scheduler-clock interrupt invoking rcu_sched_clock_irq()
> > happened just before the lock was acquired in rcu_report_qs_rdp().
> > Suppose further that the RCU grace-period kthread started a new grace
> > period just before that interrupt occurred. Then mightn't that interrupt
> > notice the new grace period and set ->cpu_no_qs.b.norm to true before
> > fully returning?
>
> IIUC, RCU grace-period kthread couldn't start new grace period
> because the interrupted cpu don't report qs to rnp via rcu_report_qs_rdp.
> That situation is listened like new gp could be started thou all cpus
> doesn't enter yet.
> That's is the reason why it's better to use WARN_ON_ONCE as you suggest
> to notice if the buggy situation happens
And try testing with CONFIG_RCU_STRICT_GRACE_PERIOD=y and CONFIG_PREEMPT=n.
Though there might be better Kconfig options to use. Those two come
immediately to mind.
> Am I missing something or wrong?
I cannot see into your head, so I cannot say.
But one critical piece is that softirq handlers, including the RCU_SOFTIRQ
handler rcu_core_si(), can be invoked upon return from interrupts.
Another critical piece is that if a CPU is idle during any part of a
grace period, the grace-period kthread can report a quiescent state on
its behalf.
Does that help?
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists