On 5/22/19 2:18 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 04:48:43PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> It is found that when debugging options are turned on, the >> rcu_read_lock() function may not be inlined at all. That will make >> it harder to debug RCU related problem as the print_lock() function >> in lockdep will print "rcu_read_lock()" instead of the caller of >> rcu_read_lock() function. For example, >> >> [ 10.579995] ============================= >> [ 10.584033] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage >> [ 10.588074] 4.18.0.memcg_v2+ #1 Not tainted >> [ 10.593162] ----------------------------- >> [ 10.597203] include/linux/rcupdate.h:281 Illegal context switch in >> RCU read-side critical section! >> [ 10.606220] >> [ 10.606220] other info that might help us debug this: >> [ 10.606220] >> [ 10.614280] >> [ 10.614280] rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 >> [ 10.620853] 3 locks held by systemd/1: >> [ 10.624632] #0: (____ptrval____) (&type->i_mutex_dir_key#5){.+.+}, at: lookup_slow+0x42/0x70 >> [ 10.633232] #1: (____ptrval____) (rcu_read_lock){....}, at: rcu_read_lock+0x0/0x70 >> [ 10.640954] #2: (____ptrval____) (rcu_read_lock){....}, at: rcu_read_lock+0x0/0x70 >> >> To make sure that the proper caller of rcu_read_lock() is shown, we >> have to force the inlining of the rcu_read_lock() function. >> >> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx> > Good point, queued! I reworked the commit log as follows, is this OK? > > Thanx, Paul > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > commit c006ffd7b607f8ee216f6a7a6d845b9514881e92 > Author: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue May 21 16:48:43 2019 -0400 > > rcu: Force inlining of rcu_read_lock() > > When debugging options are turned on, the rcu_read_lock() function > might not be inlined. This results in lockdep's print_lock() function > printing "rcu_read_lock+0x0/0x70" instead of rcu_read_lock()'s caller. > For example: > > [ 10.579995] ============================= > [ 10.584033] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage > [ 10.588074] 4.18.0.memcg_v2+ #1 Not tainted > [ 10.593162] ----------------------------- > [ 10.597203] include/linux/rcupdate.h:281 Illegal context switch in > RCU read-side critical section! > [ 10.606220] > [ 10.606220] other info that might help us debug this: > [ 10.606220] > [ 10.614280] > [ 10.614280] rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 > [ 10.620853] 3 locks held by systemd/1: > [ 10.624632] #0: (____ptrval____) (&type->i_mutex_dir_key#5){.+.+}, at: lookup_slow+0x42/0x70 > [ 10.633232] #1: (____ptrval____) (rcu_read_lock){....}, at: rcu_read_lock+0x0/0x70 > [ 10.640954] #2: (____ptrval____) (rcu_read_lock){....}, at: rcu_read_lock+0x0/0x70 > > These "rcu_read_lock+0x0/0x70" strings are not providing any useful > information. This commit therefore forces inlining of the rcu_read_lock() > function so that rcu_read_lock()'s caller is instead shown. > Your modification make sense to me. Thanks, Longman > Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h > index 534c05d529b5..a8ed624da555 100644 > --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h > +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h > @@ -588,7 +588,7 @@ static inline void rcu_preempt_sleep_check(void) { } > * read-side critical sections may be preempted and they may also block, but > * only when acquiring spinlocks that are subject to priority inheritance. > */ > -static inline void rcu_read_lock(void) > +static __always_inline void rcu_read_lock(void) > { > __rcu_read_lock(); > __acquire(RCU); >