diff options
author | Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> | 2021-07-28 12:38:42 -0700 |
---|---|---|
committer | Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> | 2021-09-13 16:32:46 -0700 |
commit | 2caebefb00f03b5ba13d44aa6cc3723759b43822 (patch) | |
tree | 6923cc0804eed5401a5d78ffb6762f26cbedf52a /kernel/rcu | |
parent | ebc88ad491362e6a4fae5bfb1c23c06c876f70be (diff) | |
download | linux-2caebefb00f03b5ba13d44aa6cc3723759b43822.tar.bz2 |
rcu: Move rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() to rcu_cpu_starting()
The purpose of rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() is to adjust the ->dynticks
counter of an incoming CPU when required. It is currently invoked
from rcutree_prepare_cpu(), which runs before the incoming CPU is
running, and thus on some other CPU. This makes the per-CPU accesses in
rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() iffy at best, and it all "works" only because
the running CPU cannot possibly be in dyntick-idle mode, which means
that rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() never has any effect.
It is currently OK for rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() to have no effect, but
only because the CPU-offline process just happens to leave ->dynticks in
the correct state. After all, if ->dynticks were in the wrong state on a
just-onlined CPU, rcutorture would complain bitterly the next time that
CPU went idle, at least in kernels built with CONFIG_RCU_EQS_DEBUG=y,
for example, those built by rcutorture scenario TREE04. One could
argue that this means that rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() is unnecessary,
however, removing it would make the CPU-online process vulnerable to
slight changes in the CPU-offline process.
One could also ask why it is safe to move the rcu_dynticks_eqs_online()
call so late in the CPU-online process. Indeed, there was a time when it
would not have been safe, which does much to explain its current location.
However, the marking of a CPU as online from an RCU perspective has long
since moved from rcutree_prepare_cpu() to rcu_cpu_starting(), and all
that is required is that ->dynticks be set correctly by the time that
the CPU is marked as online from an RCU perspective. After all, the RCU
grace-period kthread does not check to see if offline CPUs are also idle.
(In case you were curious, this is one reason why there is quiescent-state
reporting as part of the offlining process.)
This commit therefore moves the call to rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() from
rcutree_prepare_cpu() to rcu_cpu_starting(), this latter being guaranteed
to be running on the incoming CPU. The call to this function must of
course be placed before this rcu_cpu_starting() announces this CPU's
presence to RCU.
Reported-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'kernel/rcu')
-rw-r--r-- | kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 |
1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index e6e1b9281530..801075e36515 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -4129,7 +4129,6 @@ int rcutree_prepare_cpu(unsigned int cpu) rdp->n_force_qs_snap = READ_ONCE(rcu_state.n_force_qs); rdp->blimit = blimit; rdp->dynticks_nesting = 1; /* CPU not up, no tearing. */ - rcu_dynticks_eqs_online(); raw_spin_unlock_rcu_node(rnp); /* irqs remain disabled. */ /* @@ -4249,6 +4248,7 @@ void rcu_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu) mask = rdp->grpmask; WRITE_ONCE(rnp->ofl_seq, rnp->ofl_seq + 1); WARN_ON_ONCE(!(rnp->ofl_seq & 0x1)); + rcu_dynticks_eqs_online(); smp_mb(); // Pair with rcu_gp_cleanup()'s ->ofl_seq barrier(). raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags); WRITE_ONCE(rnp->qsmaskinitnext, rnp->qsmaskinitnext | mask); |