On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 06:42:14PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 05:13:16PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 04:27:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > All callers should still have RCU enabled.
> >
> > IIUC with that true we should be able to drop the RCU_NONIDLE() from
> > drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c, as we only needed that for an invocation via a pm
> > notifier.
> >
> > I should be able to give that a spin on some hardware.
> >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/cpu_pm.c | 9 ---------
> > > 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > --- a/kernel/cpu_pm.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/cpu_pm.c
> > > @@ -30,16 +30,9 @@ static int cpu_pm_notify(enum cpu_pm_eve
> > > {
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > - /*
> > > - * This introduces a RCU read critical section, which could be
> > > - * disfunctional in cpu idle. Copy RCU_NONIDLE code to let RCU know
> > > - * this.
> > > - */
> > > - rcu_irq_enter_irqson();
> > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > ret = raw_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_pm_notifier.chain, event, NULL);
> > > rcu_read_unlock();
> > > - rcu_irq_exit_irqson();
> >
> > To make this easier to debug, is it worth adding an assertion that RCU is
> > watching here? e.g.
> >
> > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_is_watching(),
> > "cpu_pm_notify() used illegally from EQS");
> >
>
> My understanding is that rcu_read_lock() implies something along those
> lines when PROVE_RCU.
Ah, duh. Given that:
Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>
Mark.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
