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:   Sun, 11 Nov 2018 16:45:28 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org,
        jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
        oleg@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 23/41] sched: Replace synchronize_sched()
 with synchronize_rcu()
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com
References: <20181111194104.GA4787@linux.ibm.com>
 <20181111194410.6368-23-paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
 <20181112001233.GC3056@worktop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181112001233.GC3056@worktop>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20181112004528.GA4170@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 01:12:33AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 11:43:52AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Now that synchronize_rcu() waits for preempt-disable regions of code
> > as well as RCU read-side critical sections, synchronize_sched() can be
> > replaced by synchronize_rcu().  This commit therefore makes this change.
> 
> Yes, but it also waits for an actual RCU quiestent state, which makes
> synchoinize_rcu() potentially much more expensive than an actual
> synchronize_sched().

None of the readers have changed.

For the updaters, if CONFIG_PREEMPT=n, synchronize_rcu() and
synchronize_sched() always were one and the same.  When CONFIG_PREEMPT=y,
synchronize_rcu() and synchronize_sched() are now one and the same.

> So why are we doing this?

Given that synchronize_rcu() and synchronize_sched() are now always one
and the same, this is a distinction without a difference.  So we might
as well get rid of the _bh and _sched APIs.  (See the tail end of current
mainline's include/linux/rcupdate.h.)

If you are instead asking why the RCU flavors (RCU-bh, RCU-preempt,
and RCU-sched) got merged, it was due to a security incident stemming
from confusion between two of the flavor, with the resulting bug turning
out to be exploitable.  Linus therefore requested that I do something
to make this not happen again, which I did.

							Thanx, Paul