Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-5511-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 16:47:20 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@amd.com>,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
	Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com>, rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] rcu: Defer RCU kthreads wakeup when CPU is dying
Message-ID: <ZYG7COHYyLNwxbNi@lothringen>
References: <20231218231916.11719-1-frederic@kernel.org>
 <20231218231916.11719-3-frederic@kernel.org>
 <b6da15c7-4729-4c7c-a88a-cc6773f9a371@paulmck-laptop>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b6da15c7-4729-4c7c-a88a-cc6773f9a371@paulmck-laptop>

On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 07:29:23AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > +static void swake_up_one_online(struct swait_queue_head *wqh)
> > +{
> > +	int cpu = get_cpu();
> 
> This works because get_cpu() is currently preempt_disable().  If there are plans to
> make get_cpu() be some sort of read lock, we might deadlock when synchronize_rcu()
> is invoked from a CPU-hotplug notifier, correct?
> 
> Might this be worth a comment somewhere at some point?

Sure, I can add that.

Thanks.