| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <aWDZNnIckOHZDolF@tardis-2.local>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 18:32:22 +0800
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@...nel.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Zqiang <qiang.zhang@...ux.dev>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 3/8] rcu/nocb: Remove unnecessary WakeOvfIsDeferred
wake path
On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 08:39:11PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 04:57:26PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Le Thu, Jan 01, 2026 at 11:34:12AM -0500, Joel Fernandes a écrit :
> > > @@ -974,8 +959,7 @@ static bool do_nocb_deferred_wakeup_common(struct rcu_data *rdp_gp,
> > > return false;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - ndw = rdp_gp->nocb_defer_wakeup;
> > > - ret = __wake_nocb_gp(rdp_gp, rdp, ndw == RCU_NOCB_WAKE_FORCE, flags);
> > > + ret = __wake_nocb_gp(rdp_gp, rdp, false, flags);
> >
> > The force parameter can now be removed, right? (same applies to wake_nocb_gp()).
> >
> > Other than that:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
>
> Ah true! Thanks, so the following hunk needs to be squashed into the patch
> then, with the review tag. Boqun, if you want to do that please do, or I can
> send it again for the next merge window.
>
We still have time for this merge window, but I see there is still
reviewing going on for other patches, maybe you could resend these 3
patches once we reach agreement, and then we can decide which merge
window. Thoughts?
Regards,
Boqun
> ---8<-----------------------
>
> From: "Joel Fernandes" <joelagnelf@...dia.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] fixup! rcu/nocb: Remove unnecessary WakeOvfIsDeferred wake
> path
>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 +-
> kernel/rcu/tree.h | 2 +-
> kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h | 14 +++++++-------
> 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 293bbd9ac3f4..2921ffb19939 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -3769,7 +3769,7 @@ static void rcu_barrier_entrain(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> }
> rcu_nocb_unlock(rdp);
> if (wake_nocb)
> - wake_nocb_gp(rdp, false);
> + wake_nocb_gp(rdp);
> smp_store_release(&rdp->barrier_seq_snap, gseq);
> }
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> index 653fb4ba5852..7dfc57e9adb1 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> @@ -499,7 +499,7 @@ static void zero_cpu_stall_ticks(struct rcu_data *rdp);
> static struct swait_queue_head *rcu_nocb_gp_get(struct rcu_node *rnp);
> static void rcu_nocb_gp_cleanup(struct swait_queue_head *sq);
> static void rcu_init_one_nocb(struct rcu_node *rnp);
> -static bool wake_nocb_gp(struct rcu_data *rdp, bool force);
> +static bool wake_nocb_gp(struct rcu_data *rdp);
> static bool rcu_nocb_flush_bypass(struct rcu_data *rdp, struct rcu_head *rhp,
> unsigned long j, bool lazy);
> static void call_rcu_nocb(struct rcu_data *rdp, struct rcu_head *head,
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> index daff2756cd90..c6f1ddecc2d8 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ static void rcu_init_one_nocb(struct rcu_node *rnp)
>
> static bool __wake_nocb_gp(struct rcu_data *rdp_gp,
> struct rcu_data *rdp,
> - bool force, unsigned long flags)
> + unsigned long flags)
> __releases(rdp_gp->nocb_gp_lock)
> {
> bool needwake = false;
> @@ -225,13 +225,13 @@ static bool __wake_nocb_gp(struct rcu_data *rdp_gp,
> /*
> * Kick the GP kthread for this NOCB group.
> */
> -static bool wake_nocb_gp(struct rcu_data *rdp, bool force)
> +static bool wake_nocb_gp(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> struct rcu_data *rdp_gp = rdp->nocb_gp_rdp;
>
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rdp_gp->nocb_gp_lock, flags);
> - return __wake_nocb_gp(rdp_gp, rdp, force, flags);
> + return __wake_nocb_gp(rdp_gp, rdp, flags);
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_LAZY
> @@ -553,7 +553,7 @@ static void __call_rcu_nocb_wake(struct rcu_data *rdp, bool was_alldone,
> TPS("WakeLazy"));
> } else if (!irqs_disabled_flags(flags)) {
> /* ... if queue was empty ... */
> - wake_nocb_gp(rdp, false);
> + wake_nocb_gp(rdp);
> trace_rcu_nocb_wake(rcu_state.name, rdp->cpu,
> TPS("WakeEmpty"));
> } else {
> @@ -959,7 +959,7 @@ static bool do_nocb_deferred_wakeup_common(struct rcu_data *rdp_gp,
> return false;
> }
>
> - ret = __wake_nocb_gp(rdp_gp, rdp, false, flags);
> + ret = __wake_nocb_gp(rdp_gp, rdp, flags);
> trace_rcu_nocb_wake(rcu_state.name, rdp->cpu, TPS("DeferredWake"));
>
> return ret;
> @@ -1255,7 +1255,7 @@ lazy_rcu_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
> }
> rcu_nocb_try_flush_bypass(rdp, jiffies);
> rcu_nocb_unlock_irqrestore(rdp, flags);
> - wake_nocb_gp(rdp, false);
> + wake_nocb_gp(rdp);
> sc->nr_to_scan -= _count;
> count += _count;
> if (sc->nr_to_scan <= 0)
> @@ -1640,7 +1640,7 @@ static void rcu_init_one_nocb(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> {
> }
>
> -static bool wake_nocb_gp(struct rcu_data *rdp, bool force)
> +static bool wake_nocb_gp(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> {
> return false;
> }
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists