On 2022/3/12 9:34 下午, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 01:19:13PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 05, 2022 at 11:41:03AM +0800, Chengming Zhou wrote:
>>> task_css_set_check() will use rcu_dereference_check() to check for
>>> rcu_read_lock_held() on the read-side, which is not true after commit
>>> dc6e0818bc9a ("sched/cpuacct: Optimize away RCU read lock"). This
>>> commit drop explicit rcu_read_lock(), change to RCU-sched read-side
>>> critical section. So fix the RCU warning by adding check for
>>> rcu_read_lock_sched_held().
>>>
>>> Fixes: dc6e0818bc9a ("sched/cpuacct: Optimize away RCU read lock")
>>> Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reported-by: syzbot+16e3f2c77e7c5a0113f9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Tested-by: Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Thanks, I'll go stick this in sched/core so it's in the same branch that
>> caused the problem.
>
> FWIW I never saw this patch because it doesn't instantly look like a
> patch I should be interested in. It's classified as 'for-next' and I
> don't run -next, sfr does that. Then it's tagged as cgroup, which I also
> don't do.
Oh, sorry for this.. I should've add "cpuacct" in the subject. The
"linux-next" prefix was added because I thought any patch based on
the linux-next branch should add this prefix.
>
> Nowhere does that look like a patch that wants to go in sched/core and
> fixes a cpuacct issue.
>
> On top of that, I still don't agree with this, I really think
> rcu_dereference_check() itself should be changed.
Yes, I think so too. This patch is workaround to fix the warning to
follow the usage in RCU Documentation.
Maybe changes should be made in RCU code to make rcu_dereference_check()
more flexible as you expressed in the conversation with Paul.
Thanks.
