mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
To: paulmck@kernel.org
Cc: josh@joshtriplett.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
	joel@joelfernandes.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, urezki@gmail.com,
	frederic@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: update: Check rcu_bh_lock_map state in rcu_read_lock_bh_held
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 00:38:09 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <61bed875-5ebf-03d8-58ea-e9263c534201@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210622175855.GE4397@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>



On 6/22/2021 11:28 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 05:35:21PM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
>> In addition to irq and softirq state, check rcu_bh_lock_map
>> state, to decide whether RCU bh lock is held.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
> 
> My initial reaction was that "in_softirq() || irqs_disabled()" covers
> it because rcu_read_lock_bh() disables BH.  But you are right that it
> does seem a bit silly to ignore lockdep.
> 
> So would it also make sense to have a WARN_ON_ONCE() if lockdep claims
> we are under rcu_read_lock_bh() protection, but "in_softirq() ||
> irqs_disabled()" think otherwise?
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 

After thinking more on this, looks like one intention of not
having lockdep check here was to catch scenarios where some code enables 
bh after doing rcu_read_lock_bh(), as is mentioned in the comment above 
rcu_read_lock_bh_held():

   Note that if someone uses
   rcu_read_lock_bh(), but then later enables BH, lockdep (if enabled)
   will show the situation.  This is useful for debug checks in functions
   that require that they be called within an RCU read-side critical
   section.

Client users seem to be doing lockdep checks on returned value:
drivers/net/wireguard/peer.c
    RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_bh_held(),

Similarly, any rcu_dereference_check(..., rcu_read_lock_bh_held()) usage 
also triggers warning, if bh is enabled, inside rcu_read_lock_bh()
section.

So, using 'in_softirq() || irqs_disabled()' condition looks to be 
sufficient condition, to mark all read lock bh regions and adding '|| 
lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map)' to this condition does not seem to fit
well with the RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_bh_held()) and 
rcu_dereference_check(..., rcu_read_lock_bh_held()) calls, if we hit
the scenario, where bh lockmap state (shows bh lock acquired) conflicts 
with the softirq/irq state .



Thanks
Neeraj

>> ---
>>   kernel/rcu/update.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c
>> index c21b38c..d416f1c 100644
>> --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c
>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c
>> @@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ int rcu_read_lock_bh_held(void)
>>   
>>   	if (rcu_read_lock_held_common(&ret))
>>   		return ret;
>> -	return in_softirq() || irqs_disabled();
>> +	return lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map) || in_softirq() || irqs_disabled();
>>   }
>>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_bh_held);
>>   
>> -- 
>> QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
>> hosted by The Linux Foundation
>>

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a 
member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

  reply	other threads:[~2021-06-22 19:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-22 12:05 Neeraj Upadhyay
2021-06-22 17:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-22 19:08   ` Neeraj Upadhyay [this message]
2021-06-22 23:46     ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-23  3:57       ` Neeraj Upadhyay
2021-06-23 15:39         ` Paul E. McKenney

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=61bed875-5ebf-03d8-58ea-e9263c534201@codeaurora.org \
    --to=neeraju@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=urezki@gmail.com \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®