Re: linux-next ppc64: RCU mods cause __might_sleep BUGs

[Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 2760 bytes --]

On Wed, 2 May 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 03:54:24PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 07:20:15AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 13:25 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > >> > Got it at last.  Embarrassingly obvious.  __rcu_read_lock() and
> > >> > __rcu_read_unlock() are not safe to be using __this_cpu operations,
> > >> > the cpu may change in between the rmw's read and write: they should
> > >> > be using this_cpu operations (or, I put preempt_disable/enable in the
> > >> > __rcu_read_unlock below).  __this_cpus there work out fine on x86,
> > >> > which was given good instructions to use; but not so well on PowerPC.
> > >> >
> > >> > I've been running successfully for an hour now with the patch below;
> > >> > but I expect you'll want to consider the tradeoffs, and may choose a
> > >> > different solution.
> > >>
> > >> Didn't Linus recently rant about these __this_cpu vs this_cpu nonsense ?
> > >>
> > >> I thought that was going out..
> > >
> > > Linus did rant about __raw_get_cpu_var() because it cannot use the x86
> > > %fs segement overrides a bit more than a month ago.  The __this_cpu
> > > stuff is useful if you have preemption disabled -- avoids the extra
> > > layer of preempt_disable().
> > >
> > > Or was this a different rant?
> > 
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/11/29/321
> > 
> > I think it ended up with Christoph removing the more egregious
> > variants, but this_cpu_that and __this_cpu_the_other remaining.
> 
> Ah, thank you for the pointer.
> 
> It would be nice to have the CPU transparency of x86 on other
> architectures, but from what I can see, that would require dedicating
> a register to this purpose -- and even then requires that the arch
> have indexed addressing modes.  There are some other approaches, for
> example, having __this_cpu_that() be located at a special address that
> the scheduler treated as implicitly preempt_disable().  Or I suppose
> that the arch-specific trap-handling code could fake it.  A little
> bit messy, but the ability to access a given CPU's per-CPU variable
> while running on that CPU does appear to have at least a couple of
> uses -- inlining RCU and also making preempt_disable() use per-CPU
> variables.
> 
> In any case, I must confess that I feel quite silly about my series
> of patches.  I have reverted them aside from a couple that did useful
> optimizations, and they should show up in -next shortly.

A wee bit sad, but thank you - it was an experiment worth trying,
and perhaps there will be reason to come back to it future.

Hugh