lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jan]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH] rcu: Fix race in set and clear TICK_DEP_BIT_RCU_EXP bitmask
Date
> > >On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 07:25:08PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 12:08:49PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h index
> > 249c2967d9e6c..7cc4856da0817 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > @@ -594,6 +594,7 @@ static void synchronize_rcu_expedited_wait(void)
> > struct rcu_data *rdp;
> > struct rcu_node *rnp;
> > struct rcu_node *rnp_root = rcu_get_root();
> > + unsigned long flags;
> >
> > trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rcu_state.name, rcu_exp_gp_seq_endval(), TPS("startwait"));
> > jiffies_stall = rcu_exp_jiffies_till_stall_check();
> > @@ -602,17 +603,17 @@ static void synchronize_rcu_expedited_wait(void)
> > if (synchronize_rcu_expedited_wait_once(1))
> > return;
> > rcu_for_each_leaf_node(rnp) {
> > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > mask = READ_ONCE(rnp->expmask);
> > for_each_leaf_node_cpu_mask(rnp, cpu, mask) {
> > rdp = per_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data, cpu);
> > if (rdp->rcu_forced_tick_exp)
> > continue;
> > rdp->rcu_forced_tick_exp = true;
> > - preempt_disable();
> > if (cpu_online(cpu))
> > tick_dep_set_cpu(cpu, TICK_DEP_BIT_RCU_EXP);
> > - preempt_enable();
> > }
> > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > }
> > j = READ_ONCE(jiffies_till_first_fqs);
> > if (synchronize_rcu_expedited_wait_once(j + HZ))
>
> Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
>
>Thank you!
>
> BTW why are we forcing the tick on the whole node?
>
>Now that you mention it, that would be more precise.
>
> And shouldn't we set the tick dependency from rcu_exp_handler() instead?
>
>Because it never occurred to me to check whether this could be invoked from an interrupt handler? ;-)
>
>But that does sound like it might be a better approach.
>
>Zqiang, would you be willing to look into this?


Yes, and I have a question, we forcing the tick dependency because the expedited grace period
is not end for the first time, this means that it is not to set the tick dependency every time.
if we set the tick dependency in rcu_exp_handler(), does this mean that every time the expedited
grace period starts the tick dependency will be set unconditionally ?

Thoughts ?

Thanks
Zqiang

>
> Thanx, Paul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-26 23:24    [W:1.660 / U:0.708 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site