Hello. I am not fully in the picture(next time will be :)). But see some comments below. > > The per-CPU variable is initialized at runtime in > > kfree_rcu_batch_init(). This function is invoked before > > `rcu_scheduler_active' is set to `RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING'. After the > > initialisation, `->initialized' is to true. > > > > The spin_lock is only acquired if `->initialized' is set to true. The > > worqueue item is only used if `rcu_scheduler_active' set to > > RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING' which happens after initialisation. > > > > Use a static initializer for krc.lock and remove the runtime > > initialisation of the lock. Since the lock can now be always acquired, > > remove the `->initialized' check. > > The local_irq_save() is removed and raw_cpu_ptr() + spin_lock_irqsave() > > is used. The worst case scenario is that after raw_cpu_ptr() the code > > has been moved to another CPU. This is "okay" because the data strucure > > itself is protected with a lock. > > Add a warning in kfree_rcu_batch_init() to ensure that this function is > > invoked before `RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING' to ensure that the worker is not > > used earlier. > > > > Reported-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 22 +++++++--------------- > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > index f288477ee1c26..5b0b63dd04b02 100644 > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > @@ -2893,7 +2893,6 @@ struct kfree_rcu_cpu_work { > > * @lock: Synchronize access to this structure > > * @monitor_work: Promote @head to @head_free after KFREE_DRAIN_JIFFIES > > * @monitor_todo: Tracks whether a @monitor_work delayed work is pending > > - * @initialized: The @lock and @rcu_work fields have been initialized > > * > > * This is a per-CPU structure. The reason that it is not included in > > * the rcu_data structure is to permit this code to be extracted from > > @@ -2908,12 +2907,13 @@ struct kfree_rcu_cpu { > > spinlock_t lock; > > struct delayed_work monitor_work; > > bool monitor_todo; > > - bool initialized; > > // Number of objects for which GP not started > > int count; > > }; > > > > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kfree_rcu_cpu, krc); > > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kfree_rcu_cpu, krc) = { > > + .lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(krc.lock), > > +}; > > > > static __always_inline void > > debug_rcu_head_unqueue_bulk(struct rcu_head *head) > > @@ -3080,9 +3080,6 @@ kfree_call_rcu_add_ptr_to_bulk(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp, > > { > > struct kfree_rcu_bulk_data *bnode; > > > > - if (unlikely(!krcp->initialized)) > > - return false; > > - > > lockdep_assert_held(&krcp->lock); It makes sense to initialize the spinlock statically, i mean not in runtime. > > > > /* Check if a new block is required. */ > > @@ -3139,10 +3136,8 @@ void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func) > > unsigned long flags; > > struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp; > > > > - local_irq_save(flags); // For safely calling this_cpu_ptr(). > > - krcp = this_cpu_ptr(&krc); > > - if (krcp->initialized) > > - spin_lock(&krcp->lock); > > + krcp = raw_cpu_ptr(&krc); > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&krcp->lock, flags); > It is not a good way to access to per-CPU variable. There is a race in your code. So, we will rework it anyway soon. To guarantee that we stay on the same CPU, first we disable IRQ's then we access per-CPU var and take a spinlock. -- Vlad Rezki