Re: [PATCH v2 tip/core/rcu 04/39] srcu: Check for tardy grace-period activity in cleanup_srcu_struct()

[Josh Triplett]

On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 05:33:32PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 04:44:51PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Users of SRCU are obliged to complete all grace-period activity before
> > invoking cleanup_srcu_struct().  This means that all calls to either
> > synchronize_srcu() or synchronize_srcu_expedited() must have returned,
> > and all calls to call_srcu() must have returned, and the last call to
> > call_srcu() must have been followed by a call to srcu_barrier().
> > Furthermore, the caller must have done something to prevent any
> > further calls to synchronize_srcu(), synchronize_srcu_expedited(),
> > and call_srcu().
> > 
> > Therefore, if there has ever been an invocation of call_srcu() on
> > the srcu_struct in question, the sequence of events must be as
> > follows:
> > 
> > 1.  Prevent any further calls to call_srcu().
> > 2.  Wait for any pre-existing call_srcu() invocations to return.
> > 3.  Invoke srcu_barrier().
> > 4.  It is now safe to invoke cleanup_srcu_struct().
> > 
> > On the other hand, if there has ever been a call to synchronize_srcu()
> > or synchronize_srcu_expedited(), the sequence of events must be as
> > follows:
> > 
> > 1.  Prevent any further calls to synchronize_srcu() or
> >     synchronize_srcu_expedited().
> > 2.  Wait for any pre-existing synchronize_srcu() or
> >     synchronize_srcu_expedited() invocations to return.
> > 3.  It is now safe to invoke cleanup_srcu_struct().
> > 
> > If there have been calls to all both types of functions (call_srcu()
> > and either of synchronize_srcu() and synchronize_srcu_expedited()), then
> > the caller must do the first three steps of the call_srcu() procedure
> > above and the first two steps of the synchronize_s*() procedure above,
> > and only then invoke cleanup_srcu_struct().
> 
> This commit message clearly explains the correct sequence for the
> client, but not which aspects of this the change now enforces.  Some of
> the steps above remain the responsibility of the caller, while the
> callee now checks more of them.  Could you add something at the end
> explaining the change and what it enforces?

More importantly, perhaps this explanation could find its way into the
documentation of cleanup_srcu_struct?

> > Reported-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> With the above change:
> Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> >  kernel/rcu/srcu.c | 5 +++++
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcu.c b/kernel/rcu/srcu.c
> > index ba41a5d04b49..6beeba7b0b67 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/srcu.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcu.c
> > @@ -261,6 +261,11 @@ void cleanup_srcu_struct(struct srcu_struct *sp)
> >  {
> >  	if (WARN_ON(srcu_readers_active(sp)))
> >  		return; /* Leakage unless caller handles error. */
> > +	if (WARN_ON(!rcu_all_batches_empty(sp)))
> > +		return; /* Leakage unless caller handles error. */
> > +	flush_delayed_work(&sp->work);
> > +	if (WARN_ON(sp->running))
> > +		return; /* Caller forgot to stop doing call_srcu()? */
> >  	free_percpu(sp->per_cpu_ref);
> >  	sp->per_cpu_ref = NULL;
> >  }
> > -- 
> > 2.5.2
> >