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:   Fri, 12 Jun 2020 06:57:08 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org, luto@kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, frederic@kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        joel@joelfernandes.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        will@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/entry: Ask RCU if it needs rcu_irq_{enter,exit}()
Message-ID: <20200612135708.GJ4455@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20200611235305.GA32342@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <87ftb0d47a.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87ftb0d47a.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:27:21AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> writes:
> > +static __always_inline bool rcu_needs_irq_enter(void)
> > +{
> > +	return !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TINY_RCU) &&
> > +               (context_tracking_enabled_cpu(smp_processor_id()) || is_idle_task(current));
> 
> This reintroduces the #PF problem which started the whole conditional
> RCU entry discussion:
> 
>    https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200515235125.628629605@linutronix.de/
> 
> and which made us all come to the conclusion that we can do it always
> conditional. No biscuit for you. :)

We can only be thankful that source-code control systems mean that my
coding session yesterday afternoon will have no permanent effect.

Let this be a lesson to all of you:  Hacking RCU while sleep-deprived
is a really bad idea.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul