On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 07:03:50PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 05:00:03PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > Le Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 04:57:38PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker a écrit : > > > Callbacks enqueued after rcutree_report_cpu_dead() fall into RCU barrier > > > blind spot. Report any potential misuse. > > > > > > Reported-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 3 +++ > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > index a60616e69b66..36070b6bf4a1 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > @@ -3084,8 +3084,11 @@ __call_rcu_common(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func, bool lazy_in) > > > head->func = func; > > > head->next = NULL; > > > kasan_record_aux_stack_noalloc(head); > > > + > > > local_irq_save(flags); > > > rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data); > > > + RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(rcu_rdp_cpu_online(rdp), "Callback enqueued on offline > > > CPU!"); > > > > This should be !rcu_rdp_cpu_online(rdp) > > > > Sigh... > > I am pulling this in for testing with this change, thank you! And: Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> > Thanx, Paul > > > > + > > > lazy = lazy_in && !rcu_async_should_hurry(); > > > > > > /* Add the callback to our list. */ > > > -- > > > 2.46.0 > > > > > > >
