Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 20 May 2020 20:28:00 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] srcu: Use local_lock() for per-CPU struct srcu_data
 access
Message-ID: <20200520182800.sdp6t6bgbhn4kkqk@linutronix.de>
References: <20200519201912.1564477-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <20200519201912.1564477-4-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <20200520102407.GF317569@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200520120608.mwros5jurmidxxfv@linutronix.de>
 <20200520174259.GA247557@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
In-Reply-To: <20200520174259.GA247557@google.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-05-20 13:42:59 [-0400], Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
Hi Joel,

> For pointer stability, can we just use get_local_ptr() and put_local_ptr()
> instead of adding an extra lock? This keeps the pointer stable while keeping
> the section preemptible on -rt. And we already have a lock in rcu_data, I
> prefer not to add another lock if possible.

What is this get_local_ptr() doing? I can't find it anywhere…

> I wrote a diff below with get_local_ptr() (just build tested). Does this
> solve your issue?

see below.

> > I remember Paul looked at that patch a few years ago and he said that
> > that disabling interrupts here is important and matches the other part
> > instance where the interrupts are disabled. Looking at it now, it seems
> > that there is just pointer stability but I can't tell if
> > rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs() needs more than just this.
> 
> Which 'other part' are you referring to? Your patch removed local_irq_save()
> from other places as well right?

The patch converted hunks.

> thanks,
> 
>  - Joel
> 
> ---8<-----------------------
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> index 8ff71e5d0fe8b..5f49919205317 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> @@ -778,13 +778,17 @@ static bool srcu_might_be_idle(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
>  	unsigned long tlast;
>  
>  	/* If the local srcu_data structure has callbacks, not idle.  */
> -	local_irq_save(flags);
> -	sdp = this_cpu_ptr(ssp->sda);
> +	sdp = get_local_ptr(ssp->sda);
> +	spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(sdp, flags);

You acquire the node lock which was not acquired before. Is that okay?
How is get_local_ptr() different to raw_cpu_ptr()?

>  	if (rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs(&sdp->srcu_cblist)) {
> -		local_irq_restore(flags);
> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(sdp, flags);
> +		put_local_ptr(sdp);
>  		return false; /* Callbacks already present, so not idle. */
>  	}
> -	local_irq_restore(flags);
> +
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(sdp, flags);
> +	put_local_ptr(sdp);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * No local callbacks, so probabalistically probe global state.

Sebastian