Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 22 Jun 2018 14:16:00 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@gmail.com>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        jiangshanlai@gmail.com, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lge.com, luto@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] rcu: Remove ->dynticks_nmi_nesting from struct
 rcu_dynticks
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <1529484440-20634-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <1529484440-20634-2-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <20180620145814.GQ3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <CANrsvRMYc5u3L53nnnGC6p-QcjBTfLPjkJGZyubGWAPauc-W8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180620164902.GW3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180622055659.GA255098@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>
 <20180622132843.GN3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180622181916.GA13628@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>
 <20180622205813.GV3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180622170042.4adfbe21@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180622170042.4adfbe21@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20180622211600.GX3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 05:00:42PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 13:58:13 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > Something like this:
> > 
> > 	IRQ entered
> > 
> > And never exited.  Ever.  I actually saw this in 2011.
> 
> I still believe this was actually a bug. And perhaps you made the RCU
> code robust enough to handle this bug ;-)

Welcome to my world!

But I recall it being used in several places, so if it was a bug, it
was an intentional bug.  Probably the worst kind.

Sort of like nested NMIs and interrupts within NMI handlers.  ;-)

> > Or something like this:
> > 
> > 	IRQ exited
> > 
> > Without a corresponding IRQ enter.
> > 
> > The current code handles both of these situations, at least assuming
> > that the interrupt entry/exit happens during a non-idle period.
> > 
> > > > So why this function-call structure?  Well, you see, NMI handlers can
> > > > take what appear to RCU to be normal interrupts...
> > > > 
> > > > (And I just added that fun fact to Requirements.html.)  
> > > 
> > > Yes, I'll definitely go through all the interrupt requirements in the doc and
> > > thanks for referring me to it.  
> > 
> > My concern may well be obsolete.  It would be good if it was!  ;-)
> 
> I'd love to mandate that irq_enter() must be paired with irq_exit(). I
> don't really see any rationale for it to be otherwise. If there is a
> case, perhaps it needs to be fixed.

Given that the usermode helpers now look to be common code using
workqueues, kthreads, and calls to do_execve(), it might well be that
the days of half-interrupts are behind us.

But how to actually validate this?  My offer of adding a WARN_ON_ONCE()
and waiting a few years still stands, but perhaps you have a better
approach.

							Thanx, Paul