On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 06:45:43PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-06-24 13:12:12 [-0700], paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > To keep the kfree_rcu() code working in purely atomic sections on RT,
> > such as non-threaded IRQ handlers and raw spinlock sections, avoid
> > calling into the page allocator which uses sleeping locks on RT.
> >
> > In fact, even if the caller is preemptible, the kfree_rcu() code is
> > not, as the krcp->lock is a raw spinlock.
> >
> > Calling into the page allocator is optional and avoiding it should be
> > Ok, especially with the page pre-allocation support in future patches.
> > Such pre-allocation would further avoid the a need for a dynamically
> > allocated page in the first place.
> >
> > Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Co-developed-by: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index 64592b4..dbdd509 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -3184,6 +3184,18 @@ kfree_call_rcu_add_ptr_to_bulk(struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp,
> > if (!bnode) {
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(sizeof(struct kfree_rcu_bulk_data) > PAGE_SIZE);
> >
> > + /*
> > + * To keep this path working on raw non-preemptible
> > + * sections, prevent the optional entry into the
> > + * allocator as it uses sleeping locks. In fact, even
> > + * if the caller of kfree_rcu() is preemptible, this
> > + * path still is not, as krcp->lock is a raw spinlock.
> > + * With additional page pre-allocation in the works,
> > + * hitting this return is going to be much less likely.
> > + */
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT))
> > + return false;
>
> This is not going to work together with the "wait context validator"
> (CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING).
>
> As of -rc3 it should complain about printk() which is why it is still disabled by default.
>
Have you tried to trigger a "complain" you are talking about?
I suspect to get some trace dump when CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING=y.
Thank you.
--
Vlad Rezki
