lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1.1 02/11] rcu: Kill rnp->ofl_seq and use only rcu_state.ofl_lock for exclusion
From

On 12/13/2021 2:27 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-12-10 at 09:56 +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
>>> - if (rdp->grpmask & rcu_rnp_online_cpus(rnp) || READ_ONCE(rnp->ofl_seq) & 0x1)
>>> + /*
>>> + * Strictly, we care here about the case where the current CPU is
>>> + * in rcu_cpu_starting() and thus has an excuse for rdp->grpmask
>>> + * not being up to date. So arch_spin_is_locked() might have a
>>
>> Minor:
>>
>> Is this comment right - "thus has an excuse for rdp->grpmask not being
>> up to date"; shouldn't it be "thus has an excuse for rnp->qsmaskinitnext
>> not being up to date"?
>>
>> Also, arch_spin_is_locked() also handles the rcu_report_dead() case,
>> where raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node() can have a rcu_read_lock
>> from lockdep path with CPU bits already cleared from rnp->qsmaskinitnext?
>
> Good point; thanks. How's this:
>
> /*
> * Strictly, we care here about the case where the current CPU is in
> * rcu_cpu_starting() or rcu_report_dead() and thus has an excuse for
> * rdp->qsmaskinitnext not being up to date. So arch_spin_is_locked()
> * might have a false positive if it's held by some *other* CPU, but
> * that's OK because that just means a false *negative* on the
> * warning.
> */
>

Looks good to me!



>>> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(rnp->qsmask & mask)) { /* RCU waiting on incoming CPU? */
>>> + /* rcu_report_qs_rnp() *really* wants some flags to restore */
>>> + unsigned long flags2;
>>
>> Minor: checkpatch flags it "Missing a blank line after declarations"
>
> Ack. Also fixed and pushed out to my parallel-5.16 branch at
> https://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/linux.git/shortlog/refs/heads/parallel-5.16
> > This commit is probably the only one that's strictly needed for that
> parallel bringup, but for now I've kept my rcu boost thread mutex
> patch, and added your two patches (with minor whitespace fixes). I
> think the best option is to let Paul handle them all.
>

Thanks; the 4 RCU specific patches in that tree looks good to me.


Thanks
Neeraj

> We'll do the final step of actually *enabling* the parallel bringup on
> any given architecture only after the various fixes have made their way
> in and we've done a proper review of the remaining code paths.
>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-13 10:12    [W:0.056 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site