Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Nov 2020 15:28:13 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] arm64/smp: Move rcu_cpu_starting() earlier |
| |
On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 06:02:49PM -0500, Qian Cai wrote: > On Thu, 2020-11-05 at 22:22 +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 04:33:25PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 14:26:14 -0400, Qian Cai wrote: > > > > The call to rcu_cpu_starting() in secondary_start_kernel() is not early > > > > enough in the CPU-hotplug onlining process, which results in lockdep > > > > splats as follows: > > > > > > > > WARNING: suspicious RCU usage > > > > ----------------------------- > > > > kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3497 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > Applied to arm64 (for-next/fixes), thanks! > > > > > > [1/1] arm64/smp: Move rcu_cpu_starting() earlier > > > https://git.kernel.org/arm64/c/ce3d31ad3cac > > > > Hmm, this patch has caused a regression in the case that we fail to > > online a CPU because it has incompatible CPU features and so we park it > > in cpu_die_early(). We now get an endless spew of RCU stalls because the > > core will never come online, but is being tracked by RCU. So I'm tempted > > to revert this and live with the lockdep warning while we figure out a > > proper fix. > > > > What's the correct say to undo rcu_cpu_starting(), given that we cannot > > invoke the full hotplug machinery here? Is it correct to call > > rcutree_dying_cpu() on the bad CPU and then rcutree_dead_cpu() from the > > CPU doing cpu_up(), or should we do something else? > It looks to me that rcu_report_dead() does the opposite of rcu_cpu_starting(), > so lift rcu_report_dead() out of CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU and use it there to rewind, > Paul?
Yes, rcu_report_dead() should do the trick. Presumably the earlier online-time CPU-hotplug notifiers are also unwound?
Thanx, Paul
| |