Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/13] rcu: Don't disable preemption for Tiny and Tree RCU readers

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:18:01PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 10:05:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > index b9d9e0249e2f..93c0f23c3e45 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > @@ -337,12 +337,14 @@ static void rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle(void)
> > >   */
> > >  void rcu_note_context_switch(void)
> > >  {
> > > +	barrier(); /* Avoid RCU read-side critical sections leaking down. */
> > >  	trace_rcu_utilization(TPS("Start context switch"));
> > >  	rcu_sched_qs();
> > >  	rcu_preempt_note_context_switch();
> > >  	if (unlikely(raw_cpu_read(rcu_sched_qs_mask)))
> > >  		rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle();
> > >  	trace_rcu_utilization(TPS("End context switch"));
> > > +	barrier(); /* Avoid RCU read-side critical sections leaking up. */
> > >  }
> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_note_context_switch);
> > 
> > These OTOH could be fixed with a noinline, such that the compiler may
> > never inline it, even with whole-program-optimizations, thereby
> > guaranteeing a function call boundary or compiler barrier.
> 
> I like the barrier() with the comment.  I expect it will be a bit more
> robust against toolchain changes.

Don't you in fact already rely on the fact that schedule() is a function
call and will not be inlined? (it doesn't have noinline and I suppose
whole program optimizers could go funny on it).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/