[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z8CdB0Hzvdu5ZVSI@Mac.home>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 09:12:39 -0800
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>
Cc: "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Cheung Wall <zzqq0103.hey@...il.com>,
Neeraj upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...y.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] rcu: Use _full() API to debug synchronize_rcu()
Hi Ulad,
I put these three patches into next (and misc.2025.02.27a) for some
testing, hopefully it all goes well and they can make it v6.15.
A few tag changed below:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 02:16:13PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> Switch for using of get_state_synchronize_rcu_full() and
> poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full() pair to debug a normal
> synchronize_rcu() call.
>
> Just using "not" full APIs to identify if a grace period is
> passed or not might lead to a false-positive kernel splat.
>
> It can happen, because get_state_synchronize_rcu() compresses
> both normal and expedited states into one single unsigned long
> value, so a poll_state_synchronize_rcu() can miss GP-completion
> when synchronize_rcu()/synchronize_rcu_expedited() concurrently
> run.
>
> To address this, switch to poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full() and
> get_state_synchronize_rcu_full() APIs, which use separate variables
> for expedited and normal states.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Z5ikQeVmVdsWQrdD@pc636/T/
I switch this into "Closes:" per checkpatch.
> Fixes: 988f569ae041 ("rcu: Reduce synchronize_rcu() latency")
> Reported-by: cheung wall <zzqq0103.hey@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@...il.com>
You seem to forget add Paul's Reviewed-by, so I add it in rcu/next.
Would you or Paul double-check the Reviewed-by should be here?
Regards,
Boqun
> ---
> include/linux/rcupdate_wait.h | 3 +++
> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 8 +++-----
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate_wait.h b/include/linux/rcupdate_wait.h
> index f9bed3d3f78d..4c92d4291cce 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate_wait.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate_wait.h
> @@ -16,6 +16,9 @@
> struct rcu_synchronize {
> struct rcu_head head;
> struct completion completion;
> +
> + /* This is for debugging. */
> + struct rcu_gp_oldstate oldstate;
> };
> void wakeme_after_rcu(struct rcu_head *head);
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 8625f616c65a..48384fa2eaeb 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -1632,12 +1632,10 @@ static void rcu_sr_normal_complete(struct llist_node *node)
> {
> struct rcu_synchronize *rs = container_of(
> (struct rcu_head *) node, struct rcu_synchronize, head);
> - unsigned long oldstate = (unsigned long) rs->head.func;
>
> WARN_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_RCU) &&
> - !poll_state_synchronize_rcu(oldstate),
> - "A full grace period is not passed yet: %lu",
> - rcu_seq_diff(get_state_synchronize_rcu(), oldstate));
> + !poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full(&rs->oldstate),
> + "A full grace period is not passed yet!\n");
>
> /* Finally. */
> complete(&rs->completion);
> @@ -3247,7 +3245,7 @@ static void synchronize_rcu_normal(void)
> * snapshot before adding a request.
> */
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_RCU))
> - rs.head.func = (void *) get_state_synchronize_rcu();
> + get_state_synchronize_rcu_full(&rs.oldstate);
>
> rcu_sr_normal_add_req(&rs);
>
> --
> 2.39.5
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists