Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1164913

Re: [PATCH 02/12] x86/mm/hotplug: Remove pgd_list use from the memory hotplug code

From Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH 02/12] x86/mm/hotplug: Remove pgd_list use from the memory hotplug code
Date 2015-06-14 21:30 +0200
Message-ID <pBlLr-5xX-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <pAQeC-Ge-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <pAQoh-TV-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <pAZhU-5wE-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <pBaGl-5oL-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On 06/14, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > > +		spin_lock(&pgd_lock); /* Implies rcu_read_lock() for the task list iteration: */
> >                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Hmm, but it doesn't if PREEMPT_RCU? No, no, I do not pretend I understand how it
> > actually works ;) But, say, rcu_check_callbacks() can be called from irq and
> > since spin_lock() doesn't increment current->rcu_read_lock_nesting this can lead
> > to rcu_preempt_qs()?
>
> No, RCU grace periods are still defined by 'heavy' context boundaries such as
> context switches, entering idle or user-space mode.
>
> PREEMPT_RCU is like traditional RCU, except that blocking is allowed within the
> RCU read critical section - that is why it uses a separate nesting counter
> (current->rcu_read_lock_nesting), not the preempt count.

Yes.

> But if a piece of kernel code is non-preemptible, such as a spinlocked region or
> an irqs-off region, then those are still natural RCU read lock regions, regardless
> of the RCU model, and need no additional RCU locking.

I do not think so. Yes I understand that rcu_preempt_qs() itself doesn't
finish the gp, but if there are no other rcu-read-lock holders then it
seems synchronize_rcu() on another CPU can return _before_ spin_unlock(),
this CPU no longer needs rcu_preempt_note_context_switch().

OK, I can be easily wrong, I do not really understand the implementation
of PREEMPT_RCU. Perhaps preempt_disable() can actually act as rcu_read_lock()
with the _current_ implementation. Still this doesn't look right even if
happens to work, and Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt says:

11.	Note that synchronize_rcu() -only- guarantees to wait until
	all currently executing rcu_read_lock()-protected RCU read-side
	critical sections complete.  It does -not- necessarily guarantee
	that all currently running interrupts, NMIs, preempt_disable()
	code, or idle loops will complete.  Therefore, if your
	read-side critical sections are protected by something other
	than rcu_read_lock(), do -not- use synchronize_rcu().

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: [PATCH 02/12] x86/mm/hotplug: Remove pgd_list use from the  memory hotplug code Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-06-14 21:30 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 02/12] x86/mm/hotplug: Remove pgd_list use from the  memory hotplug code Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-06-14 21:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 02/12] x86/mm/hotplug: Remove pgd_list use from the  memory hotplug code Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2015-06-15 22:40 +0200

csiph-web