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:   Mon, 10 Feb 2020 22:17:27 +0530
From:   Amol Grover <frextrite@gmail.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@gmail.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] events: Annotate parent_ctx with __rcu
Message-ID: <20200210164727.GA22283@workstation-portable>
References: <20200208144648.18833-1-frextrite@gmail.com>
 <20200210093624.GB14879@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200210125948.GA16485@workstation-portable>
 <20200210133459.GJ14897@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200210133459.GJ14897@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 02:34:59PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 06:29:48PM +0530, Amol Grover wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 10:36:24AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 08:16:49PM +0530, Amol Grover wrote:
> 
> > > > @@ -3106,26 +3106,31 @@ static void ctx_sched_out(struct perf_event_context *ctx,
> > > >  static int context_equiv(struct perf_event_context *ctx1,
> > > >  			 struct perf_event_context *ctx2)
> > > >  {
> > > > +	struct perf_event_context *parent_ctx1, *parent_ctx2;
> > > > +
> > > >  	lockdep_assert_held(&ctx1->lock);
> > > >  	lockdep_assert_held(&ctx2->lock);
> > > >  
> > > > +	parent_ctx1 = rcu_dereference(ctx1->parent_ctx);
> > > > +	parent_ctx2 = rcu_dereference(ctx2->parent_ctx);
> > > 
> > > Bah.
> > > 
> > > Why are you  fixing all this sparse crap and making the code worse?
> > 
> > Hi Peter,
> > 
> > Sparse is quite noisy and we need to eliminate false-positives, right?
> 
> Dunno, I've been happy just ignoring it all.
> 
> > __rcu will tell the developer, this pointer could change and he needs to
> > take the required steps to make sure the code doesn't break.
> 
> I know what it does; what I don't know is why you need to make the code
> worse. In paricular, __rcu doesn't mandate rcu_dereference(), esp. not
> when you're actually holding the write side lock.

I might've misinterpreted the code. How does replacing rcu_dereference()
with
parent_ctx1 = rcu_dereference_protected(ctx1->parent_ctx,
					lockdep_is_held(&ctx1->lock));
sound?

Thanks
Amol