>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:28:57AM +0800, Z qiang wrote:
> > >
> > > The synchronize_srcu() has been removed by commit("rcu-tasks: Eliminate
> > > deadlocks involving do_exit() and RCU tasks") in rcu_tasks_postscan.
> > > This commit therefore fix the comments of tasks_rcu_exit_srcu_stall_timer.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > > index 78d74c81cc24..d5319bbe8c98 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > > @@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ static struct rcu_tasks rt_name = \
> > >
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU
> > >
> > > -/* Report delay in synchronize_srcu() completion in rcu_tasks_postscan(). */
> > > +/* Report delay of scan exiting tasklist in rcu_tasks_postscan(). */
> > > static void tasks_rcu_exit_srcu_stall(struct timer_list *unused);
> > > static DEFINE_TIMER(tasks_rcu_exit_srcu_stall_timer, tasks_rcu_exit_srcu_stall);
> >
> > Is this timer not necessary? any thoughts?
>
> We have preemption points in the list traversals, and things like mutex
> contention on the do_exit() path could result in extremely long lists,
> so I believe we do need the timer.
>
> But what did you have in mind?
Thanks for the explanation, I ignored the scenario where the
lists might be very long :)
Thanks
Zqiang
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> > Thanks
> > Zqiang
> >
> >
> > > #endif
> > > --
> > > 2.17.1
> > >
