[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aBJy-hdrkauDW6X_@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 08:59:06 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>
Cc: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>, Changwoo Min <changwoo@...lia.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH sched_ext/for-6.16] sched_ext: Add RCU protection to
scx_root in DSQ iterator
On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 11:09:30AM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> @@ -6907,28 +6907,39 @@ __bpf_kfunc int bpf_iter_scx_dsq_new(struct bpf_iter_scx_dsq *it, u64 dsq_id,
> {
> struct bpf_iter_scx_dsq_kern *kit = (void *)it;
> struct scx_sched *sch;
> + int ret = 0;
>
> BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct bpf_iter_scx_dsq_kern) >
> sizeof(struct bpf_iter_scx_dsq));
> BUILD_BUG_ON(__alignof__(struct bpf_iter_scx_dsq_kern) !=
> __alignof__(struct bpf_iter_scx_dsq));
>
> + rcu_read_lock();
> sch = rcu_dereference(scx_root);
Can you instead try changing rcu_derefernece(scx_root) to
rcu_derefernece_check(scx_root, rcu_read_lock_bh_held())? The warning is
because this can be called both from rcu-locked and bh contexts and while
grabbing rcu_read_lock() once works, telling rcu that the dereference can be
in both contexts is more accurate here.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists