mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@redhat.com>,
	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@google.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Subject: Re: while_each_thread() under rcu_read_lock() is broken?
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 17:41:07 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100709004107.GQ2426@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100708235925.A71DA4A967@magilla.sf.frob.com>

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 04:59:25PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > We can't do call_rcu(release_task),
> > we can't take tasklist for writing in the softirq context. But even
> > if we could, this can't help in fact or I missed something.
> 
> Ah, I had missed that constraint of call_rcu.  (It's not mentioned in the
> kerneldoc comment directly, and is only buried in a couple of brief
> mentions in Documentation/RCU/.)  I was thinking that would suffice because
> it does it between rcu_read_lock critical sections, but I guess it actually
> only does it after the last one and doesn't prevent a new one from having
> started on another CPU.  (And we can't use it anyway.)

Hmmm...  The kerneldoc for rcu_read_lock() looks like it says this
pretty unambiguously.  Then again, that is easy for me to say, given
that I was the one who made most of this stuff up.   ;-)

But it has been awhile since I looked after the kerneldoc.  Please see
below for the changes I would make if left to myself.

Any other suggestions for improvement to the kerneldoc?

							Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

commit b12483332f1a7ee2db11f4bdc3c4e61edb608b01
Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu Jul 8 17:38:59 2010 -0700

    rcu: improve kerneldoc for rcu_read_lock(), call_rcu(), and synchronize_rcu()
    
    Make it explicit that new RCU read-side critical sections that start
    after call_rcu() and synchronize_rcu() start might still be running
    after the end of the relevant grace period.
    
    Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
index 508ebba..27b44b3 100644
--- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
+++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
@@ -444,7 +444,7 @@ extern int rcu_my_thread_group_empty(void);
  * until after the all the other CPUs exit their critical sections.
  *
  * Note, however, that RCU callbacks are permitted to run concurrently
- * with RCU read-side critical sections.  One way that this can happen
+ * with new RCU read-side critical sections.  One way that this can happen
  * is via the following sequence of events: (1) CPU 0 enters an RCU
  * read-side critical section, (2) CPU 1 invokes call_rcu() to register
  * an RCU callback, (3) CPU 0 exits the RCU read-side critical section,
@@ -602,11 +602,13 @@ extern void wakeme_after_rcu(struct rcu_head  *head);
 /**
  * call_rcu() - Queue an RCU callback for invocation after a grace period.
  * @head: structure to be used for queueing the RCU updates.
- * @func: actual update function to be invoked after the grace period
+ * @func: actual callback function to be invoked after the grace period
  *
- * The update function will be invoked some time after a full grace
- * period elapses, in other words after all currently executing RCU
- * read-side critical sections have completed.  RCU read-side critical
+ * The callback function will be invoked some time after a full grace
+ * period elapses, in other words after all pre-existing RCU read-side
+ * critical sections have completed.  However, the callback function
+ * might well execute concurrently with RCU read-side critical sections
+ * that started after call_rcu() was invoked.  RCU read-side critical
  * sections are delimited by rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock(),
  * and may be nested.
  */
@@ -616,9 +618,9 @@ extern void call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head,
 /**
  * call_rcu_bh() - Queue an RCU for invocation after a quicker grace period.
  * @head: structure to be used for queueing the RCU updates.
- * @func: actual update function to be invoked after the grace period
+ * @func: actual callback function to be invoked after the grace period
  *
- * The update function will be invoked some time after a full grace
+ * The callback function will be invoked some time after a full grace
  * period elapses, in other words after all currently executing RCU
  * read-side critical sections have completed. call_rcu_bh() assumes
  * that the read-side critical sections end on completion of a softirq
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
index 9906f85..63bb771 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
@@ -546,9 +546,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu);
  *
  * Control will return to the caller some time after a full grace
  * period has elapsed, in other words after all currently executing RCU
- * read-side critical sections have completed.  RCU read-side critical
- * sections are delimited by rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock(),
- * and may be nested.
+ * read-side critical sections have completed.  Note, however, that
+ * upon return from synchronize_rcu(), the caller might well be executing
+ * concurrently with new RCU read-side critical sections that began while
+ * synchronize_rcu() was waiting.  RCU read-side critical sections are
+ * delimited by rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock(), and may be nested.
  */
 void synchronize_rcu(void)
 {

  reply	other threads:[~2010-07-09  0:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-06-18 19:02 [PATCH] fix the racy check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks()->rcu_lock_break() logic Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-18 19:34 ` while_each_thread() under rcu_read_lock() is broken? Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-18 21:08   ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-18 22:37     ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-18 22:33   ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-21 17:09     ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-21 17:44       ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-21 18:00         ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-21 19:02         ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-21 20:06           ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-21 21:19             ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-06-22 14:34               ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-07-08 23:59             ` Roland McGrath
2010-07-09  0:41               ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2010-07-09  1:01                 ` Roland McGrath
2010-07-09 16:18                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-21 20:51       ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-21 21:22         ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-06-21 21:38           ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-22 21:23         ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-22 22:12           ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-23 15:24             ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-24 18:07               ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-24 18:50                 ` Chris Friesen
2010-06-24 22:00                   ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-25  0:08                     ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-06-25  3:42                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-25 10:08                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-07-09  0:52                       ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-24 21:14                 ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-25  3:37                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-07-09  0:41                     ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-24 21:57                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-25  3:41                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-25  9:55                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-28 23:43                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-29 13:05                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-29 15:34                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-29 17:54                             ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-19  5:00   ` Mandeep Baines
2010-06-19  5:35     ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-06-19 15:44       ` Mandeep Baines
2010-06-19 19:19     ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-18 20:11 ` [PATCH] fix the racy check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks()->rcu_lock_break() logic Frederic Weisbecker
2010-06-18 20:38 ` Mandeep Singh Baines

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20100709004107.GQ2426@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dzickus@redhat.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=jmarchan@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=msb@google.com \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=roland@redhat.com \
    --cc=stable@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome