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:   Wed, 13 Mar 2019 11:09:48 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
        jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
        mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, luto@kernel.org, byungchul.park@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/19] rcu: Add warning to detect
 half-interrupts
Message-ID: <20190313150948.GA84821@google.com>
References: <20180829222021.GA29944@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180829222047.319-6-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20190311133939.GA29747@google.com>
 <20190311222903.GR13351@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190312150514.GB249405@google.com>
 <20190312152034.GZ13351@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190312152034.GZ13351@linux.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 08:20:34AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[snip]
> 
> >            Could we be more explicit in the code that this function can only
> > be called from an interrupt, and also we change the code comment to be more
> > clear about it (like the following diff)?
> 
> That would be good!
> 
> Nice trick on using dyntick state to check for interrupt nesting, but
> wouldn't consolidating the counters break that?  But is there a lockdep
> check for being in a hardware interrupt handler?  If not, could one
> be added?  This would have the benefit of not adding overhead to the
> scheduling-clock interrupt in production builds of the Linux kernel,
> while still finding this bug in testing.
> 
> (Another approach would be to use IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_RCU), but
> a lockdep check would be cleaner.)

AFAICS, lockdep does not specifically track when we enter an interrupt, but
rather only tracks when interrupts are enabled/disabled.

But we could use in_irq() to find if we are in an interrupt (which uses the
preempt_count to track in HARDIRQ_MASK section of the counter).

I will add an in_irq() check that does the check only when PROVE_RCU is
enabled, and send a patch.

Thanks and it is my pleasure to look into this, quite interesting!

 - Joel