linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Paul,

Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:

  kernel/rcu/tree.c

between commit:

  abedf8e2419f ("rcu: Use simple wait queues where possible in rcutree")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  08cace5914ea ("DIAGS: Crude exploratory hack")

from the rcu tree.

I fixed it up (I used the rcu tree version) and can carry the fix as
necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider
cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
particularly complex conflicts.

I really don't think that that rcu tree patch should be in linux-next,
right?

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:32:14AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   kernel/rcu/tree.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   abedf8e2419f ("rcu: Use simple wait queues where possible in rcutree")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   08cace5914ea ("DIAGS: Crude exploratory hack")
> 
> from the rcu tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I used the rcu tree version) and can carry the fix as
> necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
> non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
> when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider
> cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
> particularly complex conflicts.
> 
> I really don't think that that rcu tree patch should be in linux-next,
> right?

Right you are!  I will rework to get the diagnostics out of your way.
-Might- have helped find one of the bugs, but don't look now...

							Thanx, Paul

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 09:41:52AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/loongarch/Kconfig
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   c78c43fe7d42 ("LoongArch: Use acpi_arch_dma_setup() and remove ARCH_HAS_PHYS_TO_DMA")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   839fc1e464eb ("arch/loongarch: Add ARCH_HAS_NMI_SAFE_THIS_CPU_OPS Kconfig option")
> 
> from the rcu tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.

Thank you, Stephen!

For whatever it is worth, this will go away once I test my rebase to v6.1.

							Thanx, Paul

> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc arch/loongarch/Kconfig
> index 903096bd87f8,c8864768dc4d..000000000000
> --- a/arch/loongarch/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/loongarch/Kconfig
> @@@ -10,6 -10,8 +10,7 @@@ config LOONGARC
>   	select ARCH_ENABLE_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
>   	select ARCH_ENABLE_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE
>   	select ARCH_HAS_ACPI_TABLE_UPGRADE	if ACPI
> + 	select ARCH_HAS_NMI_SAFE_THIS_CPU_OPS
>  -	select ARCH_HAS_PHYS_TO_DMA
>   	select ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL
>   	select ARCH_HAS_TICK_BROADCAST if GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS_BROADCAST
>   	select ARCH_INLINE_READ_LOCK if !PREEMPTION

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1296 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:

  arch/loongarch/Kconfig

between commit:

  c78c43fe7d42 ("LoongArch: Use acpi_arch_dma_setup() and remove ARCH_HAS_PHYS_TO_DMA")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  839fc1e464eb ("arch/loongarch: Add ARCH_HAS_NMI_SAFE_THIS_CPU_OPS Kconfig option")

from the rcu tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc arch/loongarch/Kconfig
index 903096bd87f8,c8864768dc4d..000000000000
--- a/arch/loongarch/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/loongarch/Kconfig
@@@ -10,6 -10,8 +10,7 @@@ config LOONGARC
  	select ARCH_ENABLE_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
  	select ARCH_ENABLE_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE
  	select ARCH_HAS_ACPI_TABLE_UPGRADE	if ACPI
+ 	select ARCH_HAS_NMI_SAFE_THIS_CPU_OPS
 -	select ARCH_HAS_PHYS_TO_DMA
  	select ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL
  	select ARCH_HAS_TICK_BROADCAST if GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS_BROADCAST
  	select ARCH_INLINE_READ_LOCK if !PREEMPTION

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 02:12:46PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/loongarch/Kconfig
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   7fd6ef61a5d6 ("LoongArch: Drop these obsolete selects in Kconfig")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   24a9c54182b3 ("context_tracking: Split user tracking Kconfig")
> 
> from the rcu tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.

Thank you, Stephen!  I have noted this for my pull request.

							Thanx, Paul

> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc arch/loongarch/Kconfig
> index 53a912befb62,130dc65f3c85..000000000000
> --- a/arch/loongarch/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/loongarch/Kconfig
> @@@ -75,7 -76,8 +75,7 @@@ config LOONGARC
>   	select HAVE_ARCH_TRACEHOOK
>   	select HAVE_ARCH_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
>   	select HAVE_ASM_MODVERSIONS
> - 	select HAVE_CONTEXT_TRACKING
> + 	select HAVE_CONTEXT_TRACKING_USER
>  -	select HAVE_COPY_THREAD_TLS
>   	select HAVE_DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW
>   	select HAVE_DMA_CONTIGUOUS
>   	select HAVE_EXIT_THREAD

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1213 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:

  arch/loongarch/Kconfig

between commit:

  7fd6ef61a5d6 ("LoongArch: Drop these obsolete selects in Kconfig")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  24a9c54182b3 ("context_tracking: Split user tracking Kconfig")

from the rcu tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc arch/loongarch/Kconfig
index 53a912befb62,130dc65f3c85..000000000000
--- a/arch/loongarch/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/loongarch/Kconfig
@@@ -75,7 -76,8 +75,7 @@@ config LOONGARC
  	select HAVE_ARCH_TRACEHOOK
  	select HAVE_ARCH_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
  	select HAVE_ASM_MODVERSIONS
- 	select HAVE_CONTEXT_TRACKING
+ 	select HAVE_CONTEXT_TRACKING_USER
 -	select HAVE_COPY_THREAD_TLS
  	select HAVE_DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW
  	select HAVE_DMA_CONTIGUOUS
  	select HAVE_EXIT_THREAD

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 01:49:47PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:48:49 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > I am still getting this.
> 
> Maybe this was a bit premature :-)

Actually, this whole mess was due to me forgetting to do the merge-window
reset of rcu/next to the tree actually submitted to mainline.  :-/

Please accept my apologies for the resulting hassles!

							Thanx, Paul

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 198 bytes --]

Hi Paul,

On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:48:49 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> I am still getting this.

Maybe this was a bit premature :-)

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 475 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:46:07 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   94c793accacd ("iommu/amd: Hide unused iommu_table_lock")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   1df9bb146146 ("EXP iommu: Placeholder for fix in mainline")
> 
> from the rcu tree.

I am still getting this.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:46:07AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   94c793accacd ("iommu/amd: Hide unused iommu_table_lock")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   1df9bb146146 ("EXP iommu: Placeholder for fix in mainline")
> 
> from the rcu tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (they share some code change) and can carry the fix as
> necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
> non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
> when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider
> cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
> particularly complex conflicts.

I expect to be dropping my commit as soon as I rebase to v4.18-rc1.
In the meantime, please accept my apologies for the noise!

							Thanx, Paul

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 737 bytes --]

Hi Paul,

Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/iommu/amd_iommu.c

between commit:

  94c793accacd ("iommu/amd: Hide unused iommu_table_lock")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  1df9bb146146 ("EXP iommu: Placeholder for fix in mainline")

from the rcu tree.

I fixed it up (they share some code change) and can carry the fix as
necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider
cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
particularly complex conflicts.



-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 01:46:36PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/nvme/host/core.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   12d9f07022dc ("nvme: fix use-after-free in nvme_free_ns_head")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   d9cf21bae6cf ("nvme: Avoid flush dependency in delete controller flow")
> 
> from the rcu tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.

Thank you, Stephen!!!

							Thanx, Paul

> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc drivers/nvme/host/core.c
> index 99b857e5a7a9,c3cea8a29843..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
> @@@ -351,8 -349,7 +351,8 @@@ static void nvme_free_ns_head(struct kr
>   	nvme_mpath_remove_disk(head);
>   	ida_simple_remove(&head->subsys->ns_ida, head->instance);
>   	list_del_init(&head->entry);
> - 	cleanup_srcu_struct(&head->srcu);
> + 	cleanup_srcu_struct_quiesced(&head->srcu);
>  +	nvme_put_subsystem(head->subsys);
>   	kfree(head);
>   }
>   

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1228 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/nvme/host/core.c

between commit:

  12d9f07022dc ("nvme: fix use-after-free in nvme_free_ns_head")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  d9cf21bae6cf ("nvme: Avoid flush dependency in delete controller flow")

from the rcu tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/nvme/host/core.c
index 99b857e5a7a9,c3cea8a29843..000000000000
--- a/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
+++ b/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
@@@ -351,8 -349,7 +351,8 @@@ static void nvme_free_ns_head(struct kr
  	nvme_mpath_remove_disk(head);
  	ida_simple_remove(&head->subsys->ns_ida, head->instance);
  	list_del_init(&head->entry);
- 	cleanup_srcu_struct(&head->srcu);
+ 	cleanup_srcu_struct_quiesced(&head->srcu);
 +	nvme_put_subsystem(head->subsys);
  	kfree(head);
  }
  

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Paul,

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:26:28 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> This conflict will disappear tomorrow, as I have merged the commit
> from Linus's tree in place of mine and have added another commit that 
> removes the READ_ONCE()s.  Same result, but no conflict.  ;-)

Thanks, I figured something like that would happen.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 01:00:18PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   kernel/rcu/tree.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   28585a832602 ("rcu: Allow for page faults in NMI handlers")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   3e2baa988b9c ("rcu: Allow for page faults in NMI handlers")
> 
> from the rcu tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just used the rcu tree version) and can carry the fix
> as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but
> any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
> when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider
> cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
> particularly complex conflicts.

Hello, Stephen,

This conflict will disappear tomorrow, as I have merged the commit
from Linus's tree in place of mine and have added another commit that 
removes the READ_ONCE()s.  Same result, but no conflict.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Paul,

Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:

  kernel/rcu/tree.c

between commit:

  28585a832602 ("rcu: Allow for page faults in NMI handlers")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  3e2baa988b9c ("rcu: Allow for page faults in NMI handlers")

from the rcu tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the rcu tree version) and can carry the fix
as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but
any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider
cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
particularly complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Paul,

On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 11:46:33 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   mm/slab_common.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   657dc2f97220 ("slab: remove synchronous rcu_barrier() call in memcg cache release path")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   24b7cb25b8d1 ("mm: Rename SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU to SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU")
> 
> from the rcu tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.

That resolution was obviously wrong, the correct one is this:

diff --cc mm/slab_common.c
index 09d0e849b07f,296413c2bbcd..000000000000
--- a/mm/slab_common.c
+++ b/mm/slab_common.c
@@@ -494,55 -458,29 +494,55 @@@ out_unlock
  }
  EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_create);
  
 -static int shutdown_cache(struct kmem_cache *s,
 -		struct list_head *release, bool *need_rcu_barrier)
 +static void slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
  {
 -	if (__kmem_cache_shutdown(s) != 0)
 -		return -EBUSY;
 +	LIST_HEAD(to_destroy);
 +	struct kmem_cache *s, *s2;
 +
 +	/*
- 	 * On destruction, SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU kmem_caches are put on the
++	 * On destruction, SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU kmem_caches are put on the
 +	 * @slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy list.  The slab pages are freed
 +	 * through RCU and and the associated kmem_cache are dereferenced
 +	 * while freeing the pages, so the kmem_caches should be freed only
 +	 * after the pending RCU operations are finished.  As rcu_barrier()
 +	 * is a pretty slow operation, we batch all pending destructions
 +	 * asynchronously.
 +	 */
 +	mutex_lock(&slab_mutex);
 +	list_splice_init(&slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy, &to_destroy);
 +	mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
 +
 +	if (list_empty(&to_destroy))
 +		return;
  
 -	if (s->flags & SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU)
 -		*need_rcu_barrier = true;
 +	rcu_barrier();
  
 -	list_move(&s->list, release);
 -	return 0;
 +	list_for_each_entry_safe(s, s2, &to_destroy, list) {
 +#ifdef SLAB_SUPPORTS_SYSFS
 +		sysfs_slab_release(s);
 +#else
 +		slab_kmem_cache_release(s);
 +#endif
 +	}
  }
  
 -static void release_caches(struct list_head *release, bool need_rcu_barrier)
 +static int shutdown_cache(struct kmem_cache *s)
  {
 -	struct kmem_cache *s, *s2;
 +	/* free asan quarantined objects */
 +	kasan_cache_shutdown(s);
  
 -	if (need_rcu_barrier)
 -		rcu_barrier();
 +	if (__kmem_cache_shutdown(s) != 0)
 +		return -EBUSY;
  
 -	list_for_each_entry_safe(s, s2, release, list) {
 +	memcg_unlink_cache(s);
 +	list_del(&s->list);
 +
- 	if (s->flags & SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU) {
++	if (s->flags & SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU) {
 +		list_add_tail(&s->list, &slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy);
 +		schedule_work(&slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy_work);
 +	} else {
  #ifdef SLAB_SUPPORTS_SYSFS
 -		sysfs_slab_remove(s);
 +		sysfs_slab_release(s);
  #else
  		slab_kmem_cache_release(s);
  #endif

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Paul,

Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:

  mm/slab_common.c

between commit:

  657dc2f97220 ("slab: remove synchronous rcu_barrier() call in memcg cache release path")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  24b7cb25b8d1 ("mm: Rename SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU to SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU")

from the rcu tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc mm/slab_common.c
index 09d0e849b07f,296413c2bbcd..000000000000
--- a/mm/slab_common.c
+++ b/mm/slab_common.c
@@@ -494,55 -458,29 +494,56 @@@ out_unlock
  }
  EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_create);
  
 -static int shutdown_cache(struct kmem_cache *s,
 -		struct list_head *release, bool *need_rcu_barrier)
 +static void slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
  {
 -	if (__kmem_cache_shutdown(s) != 0)
 -		return -EBUSY;
 +	LIST_HEAD(to_destroy);
 +	struct kmem_cache *s, *s2;
 +
 +	/*
- 	 * On destruction, SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU kmem_caches are put on the
++	 * On destruction, SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU kmem_caches are put on the
 +	 * @slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy list.  The slab pages are freed
 +	 * through RCU and and the associated kmem_cache are dereferenced
 +	 * while freeing the pages, so the kmem_caches should be freed only
 +	 * after the pending RCU operations are finished.  As rcu_barrier()
 +	 * is a pretty slow operation, we batch all pending destructions
 +	 * asynchronously.
 +	 */
 +	mutex_lock(&slab_mutex);
 +	list_splice_init(&slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy, &to_destroy);
 +	mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
 +
 +	if (list_empty(&to_destroy))
 +		return;
  
- 	rcu_barrier();
+ 	if (s->flags & SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU)
+ 		*need_rcu_barrier = true;
  
 -	list_move(&s->list, release);
 -	return 0;
 +	list_for_each_entry_safe(s, s2, &to_destroy, list) {
 +#ifdef SLAB_SUPPORTS_SYSFS
 +		sysfs_slab_release(s);
 +#else
 +		slab_kmem_cache_release(s);
 +#endif
 +	}
  }
  
 -static void release_caches(struct list_head *release, bool need_rcu_barrier)
 +static int shutdown_cache(struct kmem_cache *s)
  {
 -	struct kmem_cache *s, *s2;
 +	/* free asan quarantined objects */
 +	kasan_cache_shutdown(s);
  
 -	if (need_rcu_barrier)
 -		rcu_barrier();
 +	if (__kmem_cache_shutdown(s) != 0)
 +		return -EBUSY;
  
 -	list_for_each_entry_safe(s, s2, release, list) {
 +	memcg_unlink_cache(s);
 +	list_del(&s->list);
 +
- 	if (s->flags & SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU) {
++	if (s->flags & SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU) {
 +		list_add_tail(&s->list, &slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy);
 +		schedule_work(&slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy_work);
 +	} else {
  #ifdef SLAB_SUPPORTS_SYSFS
 -		sysfs_slab_remove(s);
 +		sysfs_slab_release(s);
  #else
  		slab_kmem_cache_release(s);
  #endif

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Paul,

Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:

  kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c

between commit:

  25528213fe9f ("tags: Fix DEFINE_PER_CPU expansions")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  0b36a04e0461 ("rcutorture: Remove redundant initialization to zero")

from the rcu tree.

I fixed it up (the latter also did what the former did) and can carry the
fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned,
but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream
maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want
to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to
minimise any particularly complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 02:06:51PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in
> arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c between commit cb57a2b4cff7 ("x86-32: Export
> kernel_stack_pointer() for modules") from Linus' tree and commit
> 98dbec158343 ("context_tracking: New context tracking susbsystem") from
> the rcu tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> is required).

Looks good, thank you!

							Thanx, Paul

> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
> 
> diff --cc arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c
> index 974b67e,65b88a5..0000000
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c
> @@@ -21,8 -21,7 +21,8 @@@
>   #include <linux/signal.h>
>   #include <linux/perf_event.h>
>   #include <linux/hw_breakpoint.h>
> - #include <linux/rcupdate.h>
>  +#include <linux/module.h>
> + #include <linux/context_tracking.h>
>   
>   #include <asm/uaccess.h>
>   #include <asm/pgtable.h>

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 879 bytes --]

Hi Paul,

Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in
arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c between commit cb57a2b4cff7 ("x86-32: Export
kernel_stack_pointer() for modules") from Linus' tree and commit
98dbec158343 ("context_tracking: New context tracking susbsystem") from
the rcu tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
is required).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c
index 974b67e,65b88a5..0000000
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c
@@@ -21,8 -21,7 +21,8 @@@
  #include <linux/signal.h>
  #include <linux/perf_event.h>
  #include <linux/hw_breakpoint.h>
- #include <linux/rcupdate.h>
 +#include <linux/module.h>
+ #include <linux/context_tracking.h>
  
  #include <asm/uaccess.h>
  #include <asm/pgtable.h>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1181 bytes --]

Hi Paul,

Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in
include/linux/sched.h between commit 907aed48f65e ("mm: allow PF_MEMALLOC
from softirq context") from Linus' tree and commit 46fc4e7c01b7 ("rcu:
Switch task's syscall hooks on context switch") from the rcu tree.

Just context changes.  I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as
necessary.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc include/linux/sched.h
index b8c8664,a094959..0000000
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@@ -1886,13 -1879,14 +1886,21 @@@ static inline void rcu_copy_process(str
  
  #endif
  
 +static inline void tsk_restore_flags(struct task_struct *task,
 +				unsigned long orig_flags, unsigned long flags)
 +{
 +	task->flags &= ~flags;
 +	task->flags |= orig_flags & flags;
 +}
 +
+ static inline void rcu_switch(struct task_struct *prev,
+ 			      struct task_struct *next)
+ {
+ #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_USER_QS
+ 	rcu_user_hooks_switch(prev, next);
+ #endif
+ }
+ 
  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
  extern void do_set_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *p,
  			       const struct cpumask *new_mask);

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Borislav Petkov]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 01:14:54AM -0400, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c between commit b77e70bf3535 ("x86, mce:
> Replace MCE_SELF_VECTOR by irq_work") from Linus' tree and commit
> ef14aea88fee ("x86: Call idle notifier after irq_enter()") from the rcu
> tree.
> 
> The commit in Linus' tree seem to superced the need for the rcu tree
> patch ... so I effectively dropped the rcu tree change to this file.

Yes, this is correct.

@Frederic, Paul: you guys could probably redo the patch without the
<arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c> hunk or leave it like this and let
Linus know about the conflict when sending the pull request during the
merge window...

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach
GM: Alberto Bozzo
Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen
HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 04:04:11PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in
> arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c between commit a0bfa1373859 ("cpuidle: stop
> depending on pm_idle") from Linus' tree and commit 18349ca4b42e ("x86:
> Enter rcu extended qs after idle notifier call") from the rcu tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
> 
> diff --cc arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> index f693e44,dee2e6c..0000000
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> @@@ -137,8 -136,12 +137,14 @@@ void cpu_idle(void
>   			enter_idle();
>   			/* Don't trace irqs off for idle */
>   			stop_critical_timings();
> - 			if (cpuidle_idle_call())
> + 
>  -			/* enter_idle() needs rcu for notifiers */
>  -			rcu_enter_nohz();
>  -			pm_idle();
>  -			rcu_exit_nohz();
> ++			if (cpuidle_idle_call()) {
> ++				/* enter_idle() needs rcu for notifiers */
> ++				rcu_enter_nohz();
>  +				pm_idle();
> ++				rcu_exit_nohz();
> ++			}
> + 
>   			start_critical_timings();
>   
>   			/* In many cases the interrupt that ended idle

Looks good, thanks!

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Paul,

Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in
arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c between commit a0bfa1373859 ("cpuidle: stop
depending on pm_idle") from Linus' tree and commit 18349ca4b42e ("x86:
Enter rcu extended qs after idle notifier call") from the rcu tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
index f693e44,dee2e6c..0000000
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
@@@ -137,8 -136,12 +137,14 @@@ void cpu_idle(void
  			enter_idle();
  			/* Don't trace irqs off for idle */
  			stop_critical_timings();
- 			if (cpuidle_idle_call())
+ 
 -			/* enter_idle() needs rcu for notifiers */
 -			rcu_enter_nohz();
 -			pm_idle();
 -			rcu_exit_nohz();
++			if (cpuidle_idle_call()) {
++				/* enter_idle() needs rcu for notifiers */
++				rcu_enter_nohz();
 +				pm_idle();
++				rcu_exit_nohz();
++			}
+ 
  			start_critical_timings();
  
  			/* In many cases the interrupt that ended idle

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 542 bytes --]

Hi Paul,

Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c between commit b77e70bf3535 ("x86, mce:
Replace MCE_SELF_VECTOR by irq_work") from Linus' tree and commit
ef14aea88fee ("x86: Call idle notifier after irq_enter()") from the rcu
tree.

The commit in Linus' tree seem to superced the need for the rcu tree
patch ... so I effectively dropped the rcu tree change to this file.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 01:38:25PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in
> include/linux/rcupdate.h between commit
> b3a084b9b684622b149e8dcf03855bf0d5fb588b ("rcu: rcu_read_lock_bh_held():
> disabling irqs also disables bh") from Linus' tree and commit
> ca5ecddfa8fcbd948c95530e7e817cee9fb43a3d ("rcu: define __rcu address
> space modifier for sparse") from the rcu tree.
> 
> I am not sure how to fix this, so I just used the version from the rcu
> tree.

I believe that I will have an update that will get rid of the conflict.
But I will let you be the final judge of that.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 556 bytes --]

Hi Paul,

Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in
include/linux/rcupdate.h between commit
b3a084b9b684622b149e8dcf03855bf0d5fb588b ("rcu: rcu_read_lock_bh_held():
disabling irqs also disables bh") from Linus' tree and commit
ca5ecddfa8fcbd948c95530e7e817cee9fb43a3d ("rcu: define __rcu address
space modifier for sparse") from the rcu tree.

I am not sure how to fix this, so I just used the version from the rcu
tree.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]