You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
rcu: Kill rnp->ofl_seq and use only rcu_state.ofl_lock for exclusion
If we allow architectures to bring APs online in parallel, then we end
up requiring rcu_cpu_starting() to be reentrant. But currently, the
manipulation of rnp->ofl_seq is not thread-safe.
However, rnp->ofl_seq is also fairly much pointless anyway since both
rcu_cpu_starting() and rcu_report_dead() hold rcu_state.ofl_lock for
fairly much the whole time that rnp->ofl_seq is set to an odd number
to indicate that an operation is in progress.
So drop rnp->ofl_seq completely, and use only rcu_state.ofl_lock.
This has a couple of minor complexities: lockdep will complain when we
take rcu_state.ofl_lock, and currently accepts the 'excuse' of having
an odd value in rnp->ofl_seq. So switch it to an arch_spinlock_t to
avoid that false positive complaint. Since we're killing rnp->ofl_seq
of course that 'excuse' has to be changed too, so make it check for
arch_spin_is_locked(rcu_state.ofl_lock).
There's no arch_spin_lock_irqsave() so we have to manually save and
restore local interrupts around the locking.
At Paul's request based on Neeraj's analysis, make rcu_gp_init not just
wait but *exclude* any CPU online/offline activity, which was fairly
much true already by virtue of it holding rcu_state.ofl_lock.
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
0 commit comments