Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221215035755.2820163-1-qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
 <20221217010345.GF4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> <PH0PR11MB5880526CB255AFF91F0D76A2DAE79@PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <PH0PR11MB588000890D537044BBAA209EDAE79@PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <20221217051759.GK4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> <Y550Z+MOq1IX3Wb4@google.com>
 <20221218180638.GR4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> <CAEXW_YSy4MyUW55Umtt4LRfX_4Dhdv0h2O=n+Zbq2ijakwGnBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20221218194434.GS4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
In-Reply-To: <20221218194434.GS4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Sun, 18 Dec 2022 16:02:35 -0500
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YQvbcvxh7u7sU-VjdAYUWpxDzdH-68qk_AjY54hMjNYMg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Fix opposite might_sleep() check in rcu_blocking_is_gp()
To:     paulmck@kernel.org
Cc:     "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>,
        "frederic@kernel.org" <frederic@kernel.org>,
        "quic_neeraju@quicinc.com" <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
        "rcu@vger.kernel.org" <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 2:44 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
[...]
> > > > If not, I would do something like this:
> > > >
> > > > ---8<-----------------------
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > index 79aea7df4345..23c2303de9f4 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > @@ -3435,11 +3435,12 @@ static int rcu_blocking_is_gp(void)
> > > >  {
> > > >       int ret;
> > > >
> > > > +     might_sleep();  /* Check for RCU read-side critical section. */
> > > > +
> > > >       // Invoking preempt_model_*() too early gets a splat.
> > > >       if (rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_INACTIVE ||
> > > >           preempt_model_full() || preempt_model_rt())
> > > >               return rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_INACTIVE;
>
> If the scheduler is inactive (early boot with interrupts disabled),
> we return here.
>
> > > > -     might_sleep();  /* Check for RCU read-side critical section. */
>
> We get here only if the scheduler has started, and even then only in
> preemption-disabled kernels.
>
> Or is you concern that the might_sleep() never gets invoked in kernels
> with preemption enabled?  Fixing that would require a slightly different
> patch, though.
>
> Or should I have waited until tomorrow to respond to this email?  ;-)

No, I think you are quite right. I was not referring to
rcu_sleep_check(), but rather the following prints in might_sleep(). I
see an unconditional call to might_sleep()  from kvfree_call_rcu() but
not one from synchronize_rcu() which can also sleep.

But I see your point, early boot code has interrupts disabled, but can
still totally call synchronize_rcu() when the scheduler is INACTIVE.
And might_sleep() might bitterly complain. Thanks for the
clarification.

pr_err("BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at %s:%d\n",
      file, line);
pr_err("in_atomic(): %d, irqs_disabled(): %d, non_block: %d, pid: %d,
name: %s\n",
      in_atomic(), irqs_disabled(), current->non_block_count,
      current->pid, current->comm);
pr_err("preempt_count: %x, expected: %x\n", preempt_count(),
      offsets & MIGHT_RESCHED_PREEMPT_MASK);

Thanks,

 - Joel

> > > >       /*
> > > >        * If the rcu_state.n_online_cpus counter is equal to one,