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;
Message-ID: <998db46d-9c76-a3c5-e7c5-b7adf1770352@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2023 21:56:38 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.12.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH rcu 2/6] rcu: Clarify rcu_is_watching() kernel-doc comment
Content-Language: en-US
To:     paulmck@kernel.org
Cc:     rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@meta.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
References: <6127192c-da9b-4599-9738-6e8f92e6c75c@paulmck-laptop>
 <20230717180317.1097590-2-paulmck@kernel.org>
 <a11d5ce7-5ee3-fbf7-9adb-4cfc805c6bb7@joelfernandes.org>
 <2e404769-67af-4240-b572-bd0808503486@paulmck-laptop>
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
In-Reply-To: <2e404769-67af-4240-b572-bd0808503486@paulmck-laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Paul,

On 7/18/23 14:12, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 08:52:30AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> On 7/17/23 14:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> Make it clear that this function always returns either true or false
>>> without other planned failure modes.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
>>> ---
>>>    kernel/rcu/tree.c | 12 ++++++++----
>>>    1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>>> index 1449cb69a0e0..fae9b4e29c93 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
>>> @@ -679,10 +679,14 @@ static void rcu_disable_urgency_upon_qs(struct rcu_data *rdp)
>>>    /**
>>>     * rcu_is_watching - see if RCU thinks that the current CPU is not idle
>>
>> Would it be better to modify the 'not idle' to 'not idle from an RCU
>> viewpoint'? This matches the comments in ct_nmi_enter() as well.
> 
> We have the "if RCU thinks that" earlier.
> 
> But maybe something like this?
> 
>   * rcu_is_watching - RCU read-side critical sections permitted on current CPU?
> 

Yes, that's better.

>>>     *
>>> - * Return true if RCU is watching the running CPU, which means that this
>>> - * CPU can safely enter RCU read-side critical sections.  In other words,
>>> - * if the current CPU is not in its idle loop or is in an interrupt or
>>> - * NMI handler, return true.
>>> + * Return @true if RCU is watching the running CPU and @false otherwise.
>>> + * An @true return means that this CPU can safely enter RCU read-side
>>> + * critical sections.
>>> + *
>>> + * More specifically, if the current CPU is not deep within its idle
>>> + * loop, return @true.  Note that rcu_is_watching() will return @true if
>>> + * invoked from an interrupt or NMI handler, even if that interrupt or
>>> + * NMI interrupted the CPU while it was deep within its idle loop.
>>
>> But it is more than the idle loop, for ex. NOHZ_FULL CPUs with single task
>> running could be idle from RCU's viewpoint? Could that be clarified more?
> 
> Perhaps something like this?
> 
>   * Although calls to rcu_is_watching() from most parts of the kernel
>   * will return @true, there are important exceptions.  For example, if the
>   * current CPU is deep within its idle loop, in kernel entry/exit code,
>   * or offline, rcu_is_watching() will return @false.
> 
> (Where nohz_full CPUs are covered by kernel entry/exit code.)

To me, "kernel exit" does not immediately make the nohz_full CPU case 
obvious. But yes, your suggestion is an improvement so we can go with 
that. :)

Also because we agree on the changes, for next revision:
Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>

thanks,

  - Joel