Re: [PATCH] rcu: tree_stall: Correctly unlock root node in rcu_check_gp_start_stall

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 3/30/19 2:57 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 07:52:15PM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:


On 3/29/19 6:58 PM, Mukesh Ojha wrote:

On 3/29/2019 4:57 PM, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
Only unlock the root node, if current node (rnp) is not
root node.

Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



---
   kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h | 4 +++-
   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h
index f65a73a..0651833 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h


why this is showing as under tree_stall.h while it is under
"kernel/rcu/tree.c"

It's moved in https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git/commit/?h=dev&id=10462d6f58fb6dbde7563e9343505d98d5bfba3d

Please see linux-rcu dev tree for other changes, which moves code to
this file.


Thanks
Neeraj


@@ -630,7 +630,9 @@ static void rcu_check_gp_start_stall(struct
rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
           time_before(j, rcu_state.gp_req_activity + gpssdelay) ||
           time_before(j, rcu_state.gp_activity + gpssdelay) ||
           atomic_xchg(&warned, 1)) {
-        raw_spin_unlock_rcu_node(rnp_root); /* irqs remain disabled. */
+        if (rnp_root != rnp)
+            /* irqs remain disabled. */
+            raw_spin_unlock_rcu_node(rnp_root);

Looks good as it will balance the lock .if it is the root_node,
which was not there earlier, and unlock was happening without any
lock on root.

Reviewed-by: Mukesh Ojha <mojha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Applied, again thank you both!

In both cases, I updated the commit log, so please check to make sure
that I didn't mess anything up.

							Thanx, Paul


Thanks Paul. One minor comment on https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git/commit/?h=dev&id=ec6530e763046b6bb1f4c2c2aed49ebc68aae2a0

"it clearly does not make sense to release
both rnp->lock and rnp->lock"

should be rnp->lock and rnp_root->lock



Thanks
Neeraj

Cheers,
-Mukesh

           raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
           return;
       }

--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation



--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux