Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] rcu: Use _full() API to debug synchronize_rcu()
From: Uladzislau Rezki
Date: Tue Feb 25 2025 - 05:56:50 EST
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 11:06:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 02:36:59PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > Switch for using of get_state_synchronize_rcu_full() and
> > poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full() pair for debug a normal
> > synchronize_rcu() call.
> >
> > Just using "not" full APIs to identify if a grace period
> > is passed or not might lead to a false kernel splat.
> >
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Z5ikQeVmVdsWQrdD@pc636/T/
> > Fixes: 988f569ae041 ("rcu: Reduce synchronize_rcu() latency")
> > Reported-by: cheung wall <zzqq0103.hey@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/linux/rcupdate_wait.h | 4 ++++
> > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 8 +++-----
> > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate_wait.h b/include/linux/rcupdate_wait.h
> > index f9bed3d3f78d..a16fc2a9a7d7 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/rcupdate_wait.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate_wait.h
> > @@ -16,6 +16,10 @@
> > struct rcu_synchronize {
> > struct rcu_head head;
> > struct completion completion;
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU
> > + /* This is for testing. */
> > + struct rcu_gp_oldstate oldstate;
> > +#endif
>
> This causes the build to fail on TREE01. One way to make the build
> succeed is to remove the #ifdefs above. Another way would be to add
> #ifdefs to the WARN_ONCE() below. I suspect that removing the #ifdefs
> is best, at least until such time as people start passing many tens
> of SRCU instances to synchronize_rcu_mult() or some such (which seems
> quite unlikely).
>
> Thoughts?
>
Right, i agree. I will repost this series.
Thank you for checking and testing :)
--
Uladzislau Rezki