On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:53:05PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 15:55:59 -0800
> paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > @@ -1252,10 +1252,10 @@ static bool rcu_future_gp_cleanup(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> > */
> > static void rcu_gp_kthread_wake(void)
> > {
> > - if ((current == rcu_state.gp_kthread &&
> > + if ((current == READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_kthread) &&
> > !in_irq() && !in_serving_softirq()) ||
> > !READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags) ||
> > - !rcu_state.gp_kthread)
> > + !READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_kthread))
> > return;
>
> This looks buggy. You have two instances of
> READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_thread), which means they can be different. Is
> that intentional?
It might well be a bug, but let's see...
The rcu_state.gp_kthread field is initially NULL and transitions only once
to the non-NULL pointer to the RCU grace-period kthread's task_struct
structure. So yes, this does work, courtesy of the compiler not being
allowed to change the order of READ_ONCE() instances and conherence-order
rules for READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE().
But it would clearly be way better to do just one READ_ONCE() into a
local variable and test that local variable twice.
I will make this change, and thank you for calling my attention to it!
Thanx, Paul
