On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 08:45:28AM -0400, Miles Lane wrote:
>> Is there a patch set for 2.6.34-rc5 I can test?
>
> I will be sending a patchset out later today after testing, but
> please see below for a sneak preview collapsed into a single patch.
>
>                                                        Thanx, Paul
>
>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 16:23 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> >
>> > > [PATCH] RCU: don't turn off lockdep when find suspicious
>> > rcu_dereference_check() usage
>> > >
>> > > When suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage is detected, lockdep is
>> > still
>> > > available actually, so we should not call debug_locks_off() in
>> > > lockdep_rcu_dereference().
>> > >
>> > > For get rid of too much "suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage"
>> > > output when the "if(!debug_locks_off())" statement is removed. This patch
>> > uses
>> > > static variable '__warned's for very usage of "rcu_dereference*()".
>> > >
>> > > One variable per usage, so, Now, we can get multiple complaint
>> > > when we detect multiple different suspicious rcu_dereference_check()
>> > usage.
>> > >
>> > > Requested-by: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
>> > > Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> >
>> > Although mine was a linux-next kernel and it doesn't appear that I have
>> > rcu_dereference_protected() at all, so I dropped that bit of the patch,
>> > it worked great!  I got 4 more complaints to harass people with.  Feel
>> > free to add my tested by if you care to.
>> >
>> > Tested-by: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> index 07db2fe..ec9ab49 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> @@ -190,6 +190,15 @@ static inline int rcu_read_lock_sched_held(void)
>
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU
>
> +#define __do_rcu_dereference_check(c)                                  \
> +       do {                                                            \
> +               static bool __warned;                                   \
> +               if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && !(c)) { \
> +                       __warned = true;                                \
> +                       lockdep_rcu_dereference(__FILE__, __LINE__);    \
> +               }                                                       \
> +       } while (0)
> +
>  /**
>  * rcu_dereference_check - rcu_dereference with debug checking
>  * @p: The pointer to read, prior to dereferencing
> @@ -219,8 +228,7 @@ static inline int rcu_read_lock_sched_held(void)
>  */
>  #define rcu_dereference_check(p, c) \
>        ({ \
> -               if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !(c)) \
> -                       lockdep_rcu_dereference(__FILE__, __LINE__); \
> +               __do_rcu_dereference_check(c); \
>                rcu_dereference_raw(p); \
>        })
>
> @@ -237,8 +245,7 @@ static inline int rcu_read_lock_sched_held(void)
>  */
>  #define rcu_dereference_protected(p, c) \
>        ({ \
> -               if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !(c)) \
> -                       lockdep_rcu_dereference(__FILE__, __LINE__); \
> +               __do_rcu_dereference_check(c); \
>                (p); \
>        })
>
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup_freezer.c b/kernel/cgroup_freezer.c
> index da5e139..e5c0244 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup_freezer.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup_freezer.c
> @@ -205,9 +205,12 @@ static void freezer_fork(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct task_struct *task)
>         * No lock is needed, since the task isn't on tasklist yet,
>         * so it can't be moved to another cgroup, which means the
>         * freezer won't be removed and will be valid during this
> -        * function call.
> +        * function call.  Nevertheless, apply RCU read-side critical
> +        * section to suppress RCU lockdep false positives.
>         */
> +       rcu_read_lock();
>        freezer = task_freezer(task);
> +       rcu_read_unlock();
>
>        /*
>         * The root cgroup is non-freezable, so we can skip the
> diff --git a/kernel/lockdep.c b/kernel/lockdep.c
> index 2594e1c..03dd1fa 100644
> --- a/kernel/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/lockdep.c
> @@ -3801,8 +3801,6 @@ void lockdep_rcu_dereference(const char *file, const int line)
>  {
>        struct task_struct *curr = current;
>
> -       if (!debug_locks_off())
> -               return;
>        printk("\n===================================================\n");
>        printk(  "[ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]\n");
>        printk(  "---------------------------------------------------\n");
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index 6af210a..14c44ec 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -323,6 +323,15 @@ static inline struct task_group *task_group(struct task_struct *p)
>  /* Change a task's cfs_rq and parent entity if it moves across CPUs/groups */
>  static inline void set_task_rq(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int cpu)
>  {
> +       /*
> +        * Strictly speaking this rcu_read_lock() is not needed since the
> +        * task_group is tied to the cgroup, which in turn can never go away
> +        * as long as there are tasks attached to it.
> +        *
> +        * However since task_group() uses task_subsys_state() which is an
> +        * rcu_dereference() user, this quiets CONFIG_PROVE_RCU.
> +        */
> +       rcu_read_lock();
>  #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
>        p->se.cfs_rq = task_group(p)->cfs_rq[cpu];
>        p->se.parent = task_group(p)->se[cpu];
> @@ -332,6 +341,7 @@ static inline void set_task_rq(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int cpu)
>        p->rt.rt_rq  = task_group(p)->rt_rq[cpu];
>        p->rt.parent = task_group(p)->rt_se[cpu];
>  #endif
> +       rcu_read_unlock();
>  }
>
>  #else
>

Hi Paul.

Has this patch made it into the Linus tree?
Thanks!

          Miles
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/