> > Did I get that right?
> >
>
> Other than I'm unable to follow what do you mean "WH has not been
> injected, so nothing to wait on", maybe because I am missing some
> terminology from you ;-) I think it's a good analysis, thank you!
>
> > I think this is a real bug AFAICS, hoping all the memory barriers are in
> > place to make sure the code reordering also correctly orders the accesses.
> > I'll double check that.
> >
> > I also feel its 'theoretical', because as long as rcu_gp_init() and
> > rcu_gp_cleanup() are properly ordered WRT pre-existing readers, then
> > synchronize_rcu_normal() still waits for pre-existing readers even though its
> > a bit confused about the value of the cookies.
> >
> > For the fix,
> > Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > (If possible, include a Link: to my (this) post so that the sequence of
> > events is further clarified.)
> >
>
> Will add the tag (with the email you really want ;-)) and a link to this
> email to the patch. Thanks!
>
CPU_1: | CPU_2:
# Increase a seq-number |
rcu_seq_start(&rcu_state.gp_seq); |
| add_client() {
| # Record a gp-sec state
| get_state_synchronize_rcu_full(&rs.oldstate);
| }
|
| rcu_sr_normal_gp_init() {
| add a dummy-wait-head;
| }
A client has been added with already updated gp-sec number, i.e.
"oldstate" would refer to this GP, not to previous. A poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full()
will complain because this GP is not passed, it will on a next iteration.
This is how i see this.
--
Uladzislau Rezki
