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:   Tue, 13 Jul 2021 06:18:12 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc:     zhouzhouyi@gmail.com, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        "Joel Fernandes, Google" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RCU: Fix macro name CONFIG_TASKS_RCU_TRACE
Message-ID: <20210713131812.GV4397@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20210713005645.8565-1-zhouzhouyi@gmail.com>
 <20210713041607.GU4397@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <520385500.15226.1626181744332.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <520385500.15226.1626181744332.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 09:09:04AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Jul 13, 2021, at 12:16 AM, paulmck paulmck@kernel.org wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 08:56:45AM +0800, zhouzhouyi@gmail.com wrote:
> >> From: Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@gmail.com>
> >> 
> >> Hi Paul,
> >> 
> >> During my studying of RCU, I did a grep in the kernel source tree.
> >> I found there are 3 places where the macro name CONFIG_TASKS_RCU_TRACE
> >> should be CONFIG_TASKS_TRACE_RCU instead.
> >> 
> >> Without memory fencing, the idle/userspace task inspection may not
> >> be so accurate.
> >> 
> >> Thanks for your constant encouragement for my studying.
> >> 
> >> Best Wishes
> >> Zhouyi
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@gmail.com>
> > 
> > Good eyes, and those could cause real bugs, so thank you!
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> This makes me wonder: what is missing testing-wise in rcutorture to
> catch those issues with testing before they reach mainline ?

My guess:  Running on weakly ordered architectures.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul