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;
Message-ID: <ad29574b34aca9ab61d310508f4f21a35cac406e.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT v3 1/5] rcu: Acquire RCU lock when disabling BHs
From:   Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc:     linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Sep 2019 11:12:48 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20190917144252.v34ina4z2ydchoit@linutronix.de>
References: <20190911165729.11178-1-swood@redhat.com>
         <20190911165729.11178-2-swood@redhat.com>
         <20190917074456.yj7t3wdwuhn3zcng@linutronix.de>
         <63b430ca2f067e61bef1c387fad782ab4a2c1ed3.camel@redhat.com>
         <20190917144252.v34ina4z2ydchoit@linutronix.de>
Organization: Red Hat
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5 (3.30.5-1.fc29) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2019-09-17 at 16:42 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-09-17 09:06:28 [-0500], Scott Wood wrote:
> > Sorry, I missed that you were asking about rcu_read_lock_bh() as
> > well.  I
> > did remove the change to rcu_read_lock_bh_held().
> 
> Sorry for not being clear here.
> 
> > With this patch, local_bh_disable() calls rcu_read_lock() on RT which
> > handles this debug stuff.  Doing it twice shouldn't be explicitly
> > harmful,
> > but it's redundant, and debug kernels are slow enough as is.
> 
> rcu_read_lock() does:
> >         __rcu_read_lock();
> >         __acquire(RCU);
> >         rcu_lock_acquire(&rcu_lock_map);
> >         RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_is_watching(),
> >                          "rcu_read_lock() used illegally while idle");
> 
> __acquire() is removed removed by cpp.
> That RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN is doing the same thing as above and redundant.
> Am I right to assume that you consider
> 	rcu_lock_acquire(&rcu_bh_lock_map);
> 
> redundant because the only user of that is also checking for
> rcu_lock_map?

Yes.

-Scott