Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] rcu: Add support for consolidated-RCU reader checking

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	c0d1n61at3@gmail.com, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	edumazet@google.com,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
	keescook@chromium.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
	neilb@suse.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk>,
	rcu@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	will@kernel.org,
	"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
	<x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] rcu: Add support for consolidated-RCU reader checking
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:45:31 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190712164531.GW26519@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190712151051.GB235410@google.com>

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:10:51AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:11:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:43:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > +int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void)
> > > +{
> > > +	int lockdep_opinion = 0;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled())
> > > +		return 1;
> > > +	if (!rcu_is_watching())
> > > +		return 0;
> > > +	if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online())
> > > +		return 0;
> > > +
> > > +	/* Preemptible RCU flavor */
> > > +	if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map))
> > 
> > you forgot debug_locks here.
> 
> Actually, it turns out debug_locks checking is not even needed. If
> debug_locks == 0, then debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() returns 0 and we would not
> get to this point.
> 
> > > +		return 1;
> > > +
> > > +	/* BH flavor */
> > > +	if (in_softirq() || irqs_disabled())
> > 
> > I'm not sure I'd put irqs_disabled() under BH, also this entire
> > condition is superfluous, see below.
> > 
> > > +		return 1;
> > > +
> > > +	/* Sched flavor */
> > > +	if (debug_locks)
> > > +		lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map);
> > > +	return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible();
> > 
> > that !preemptible() turns into:
> > 
> >   !(preempt_count()==0 && !irqs_disabled())
> > 
> > which is:
> > 
> >   preempt_count() != 0 || irqs_disabled()
> > 
> > and already includes irqs_disabled() and in_softirq().
> > 
> > > +}
> > 
> > So maybe something lke:
> > 
> > 	if (debug_locks && (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) ||
> > 			    lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map)))
> > 		return true;
> 
> Agreed, I will do it this way (without the debug_locks) like:
> 
> ---8<-----------------------
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> index ba861d1716d3..339aebc330db 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> @@ -296,27 +296,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_bh_held);
>  
>  int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void)
>  {
> -	int lockdep_opinion = 0;
> -
>  	if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled())
>  		return 1;
>  	if (!rcu_is_watching())
>  		return 0;
>  	if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online())
>  		return 0;
> -
> -	/* Preemptible RCU flavor */
> -	if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map))
> -		return 1;
> -
> -	/* BH flavor */
> -	if (in_softirq() || irqs_disabled())
> -		return 1;
> -
> -	/* Sched flavor */
> -	if (debug_locks)
> -		lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map);
> -	return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible();
> +	if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) || lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map))

OK, I will bite...  Why not also lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map)?

							Thanx, Paul

> +		return 1;
> +	return !preemptible();
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_any_held);
>  
> 