Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Remove some notrace RCU APIs

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 02:14:07PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 08:50:35AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 10:19:54AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 07:08:26AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 25 May 2019 04:14:44 -0400
> > > > Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > I guess the difference between the _raw_notrace and just _raw variants
> > > > > > is that _notrace ones do a rcu_check_sparse(). Don't we want to keep
> > > > > > that check?  
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is true.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Since the users of _raw_notrace are very few, is it worth keeping this API
> > > > > just for sparse checking? The API naming is also confusing. I was expecting
> > > > > _raw_notrace to do fewer checks than _raw, instead of more. Honestly, I just
> > > > > want to nuke _raw_notrace as done in this series and later we can introduce a
> > > > > sparse checking version of _raw if need-be. The other option could be to
> > > > > always do sparse checking for _raw however that used to be the case and got
> > > > > changed in http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-afs/2016-July/001016.html
> > > > 
> > > > What if we just rename _raw to _raw_nocheck, and _raw_notrace to _raw ?
> > > 
> > > That would also mean changing 160 usages of _raw to _raw_nocheck in the
> > > kernel :-/.
> > > 
> > > The tracing usage of _raw_notrace is only like 2 or 3 users. Can we just call
> > > rcu_check_sparse directly in the calling code for those and eliminate the APIs?
> > > 
> > > I wonder what Paul thinks about the matter as well.
> > 
> > My thought is that it is likely that a goodly number of the current uses
> > of _raw should really be some form of _check, with lockdep expressions
> > spelled out.  Not that working out what exactly those lockdep expressions
> > should be is necessarily a trivial undertaking.  ;-)
> 
> Yes, currently where I am a bit stuck is the rcu_dereference_raw()
> cannot possibly know what SRCU domain it is under, so lockdep cannot check if
> an SRCU lock is held without the user also passing along the SRCU domain. I
> am trying to change lockdep to see if it can check if *any* srcu domain lock
> is held (regardless of which one) and complain if none are. This is at least
> better than no check at all.
> 
> However, I think it gets tricky for mutexes. If you have something like:
> mutex_lock(some_mutex);
> p = rcu_dereference_raw(gp);
> mutex_unlock(some_mutex);
> 
> This might be a perfectly valid invocation of _raw, however my checks (patch
> is still cooking) trigger a lockdep warning becase _raw cannot know that this
> is Ok. lockdep thinks it is not in a reader section. This then gets into the
> territory of a new rcu_derference_raw_protected(gp, assert_held(some_mutex))
> which sucks because its yet another API. To circumvent this issue, can we
> just have callers of rcu_dereference_raw ensure that they call
> rcu_read_lock() if they are protecting dereferences by a mutex? That would
> make things a lot easier and also may be Ok since rcu_read_lock is quite
> cheap.

Why not just rcu_dereference_protected(lockdep_is_held(some_mutex))?
The API is already there, and no need for spurious readers.

> > That aside, if we are going to change the name of an API that is
> > used 160 places throughout the tree, we would need to have a pretty
> > good justification.  Without such a justification, it will just look
> > like pointless churn to the various developers and maintainers on the
> > receiving end of the patches.
> 
> Actually, the API name change is not something I want to do, it is Steven
> suggestion. My suggestion is let us just delete _raw_notrace and just use the
> _raw API for tracing, since _raw doesn't do any tracing anyway. Steve pointed
> that _raw_notrace does sparse checking unlike _raw, but I think that isn't an
> issue since _raw doesn't do such checking at the moment anyway.. (if possible
> check my cover letter again for details/motivation of this series).

Understood, but regardless of who suggested it, if we are to go through
with it, good justification will be required.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

> thanks!
> 
>  - Joel
> 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> > 
> > > thanks, Steven!
> > > 
> > 
>