lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/3] rcu: add debug check for too many rcu_read_unlock()
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 06:28:15PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 06:19:19PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 06:03:08PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 04:04:01PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > From: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > >
> > > > TREE_PREEMPT_RCU maintains an rcu_read_lock_nesting counter in the
> > > > task structure, which happens to be a signed int. So this patch adds a
> > > > check for this counter being negative at the end of __rcu_read_unlock().
> > > > This check is under CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING, so can be thought of as being
> > > > part of lockdep.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > kernel/rcutree_plugin.h | 3 +++
> > > > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> > > > index f11ebd4..e77cdf3 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> > > > +++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> > > > @@ -304,6 +304,9 @@ void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
> > > > if (--ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_lock_nesting) == 0 &&
> > > > unlikely(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special)))
> > > > rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> > > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_lock_nesting) < 0);
> > > > +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */
> > > > }
> > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__rcu_read_unlock);
> > >
> > > Given that you *already* need to access t->rcu_read_lock_nesting here,
> > > why not just do the test all the time? Ideally you could access
> > > t->rcu_read_lock_nesting once, decrement it, and test for both 0 and
> > > negative.
> >
> > Because I was paranoid about the extra branch. Perhaps needlessly
> > paranoid, but this is rcu_read_unlock() we are talking about here. ;-)
> >
> > You seem to be suggesting making the first test be "<=", then
> > sorting things out later, but given that both the equals-zero and the
> > greater-than-zero cases are quite common, I couldn't figure out how to
> > avoid the extra test and branch in the common case. Hence the #ifdef.
>
> No, I think you could simply read the predecremented value into a local
> variable, test it once with == 0, then have the WARN_ON_ONCE, and hope
> that the compiler figures out it can just test the register once and
> then do multiple jumps on the same flags.
>
> You could try it and see what code it generates.

I agree that a smart compiler could share condition-code state, but
there still will be the extra branch. (Keep in mind that this is a
.h file, so #ifdef is permitted -- though I might nevertheless make
a one-line function/macro.)

Thanx, Paul


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-05 17:25    [W:0.052 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site