Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 2 Oct 2012 10:01:50 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: Lockdep complains about commit 1331e7a1bb ("rcu: Remove _rcu_barrier() dependency on __stop_machine()") |
| |
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 06:14:08PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > Hi, > > this commit: > > == > 1331e7a1bbe1f11b19c4327ba0853bee2a606543 is the first bad commit > commit 1331e7a1bbe1f11b19c4327ba0853bee2a606543 > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org> > Date: Thu Aug 2 17:43:50 2012 -0700 > > rcu: Remove _rcu_barrier() dependency on __stop_machine() > > Currently, _rcu_barrier() relies on preempt_disable() to prevent > any CPU from going offline, which in turn depends on CPU hotplug's > use of __stop_machine(). > > This patch therefore makes _rcu_barrier() use get_online_cpus() to > block CPU-hotplug operations. This has the added benefit of removing > the need for _rcu_barrier() to adopt callbacks: Because CPU-hotplug > operations are excluded, there can be no callbacks to adopt. This > commit simplifies the code accordingly. > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> > == > > is causing lockdep to complain (see the full trace below). I haven't yet > had time to analyze what exactly is happening, and probably will not have > time to do so until tomorrow, so just sending this as a heads-up in case > anyone sees the culprit immediately.
Hmmm... Does the following patch help? It swaps the order in which rcu_barrier() acquires the hotplug and rcu_barrier locks.
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c index 2ad9e81..2c71d61 100644 --- a/kernel/rcutree.c +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c @@ -2560,6 +2560,9 @@ static void _rcu_barrier(struct rcu_state *rsp) _rcu_barrier_trace(rsp, "Begin", -1, snap); + /* Exclude CPU-hotplug, ensuring that no offline CPU has callbacks. */ + get_online_cpus(); + /* Take mutex to serialize concurrent rcu_barrier() requests. */ mutex_lock(&rsp->barrier_mutex); @@ -2581,6 +2584,7 @@ static void _rcu_barrier(struct rcu_state *rsp) _rcu_barrier_trace(rsp, "EarlyExit", -1, snap_done); smp_mb(); /* caller's subsequent code after above check. */ mutex_unlock(&rsp->barrier_mutex); + put_online_cpus(); return; } @@ -2597,8 +2601,7 @@ static void _rcu_barrier(struct rcu_state *rsp) /* * Initialize the count to one rather than to zero in order to * avoid a too-soon return to zero in case of a short grace period - * (or preemption of this task). Exclude CPU-hotplug operations - * to ensure that no offline CPU has callbacks queued. + * (or preemption of this task). */ init_completion(&rsp->barrier_completion); atomic_set(&rsp->barrier_cpu_count, 1); @@ -2620,7 +2623,6 @@ static void _rcu_barrier(struct rcu_state *rsp) rsp->n_barrier_done); } } - put_online_cpus(); /* * Now that we have an rcu_barrier_callback() callback on each @@ -2639,8 +2641,9 @@ static void _rcu_barrier(struct rcu_state *rsp) /* Wait for all rcu_barrier_callback() callbacks to be invoked. */ wait_for_completion(&rsp->barrier_completion); - /* Other rcu_barrier() invocations can now safely proceed. */ + /* Hotplug and rcu_barrier() invocations can now safely proceed. */ mutex_unlock(&rsp->barrier_mutex); + put_online_cpus(); } /**
| |