Re: [PATCH] fix rcu vs hotplug race

[Dhaval Giani]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:48:55AM +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:17:38AM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > IMHO the warning is a spurious one.
> > Here's the timeline.
> > CPU_A						 CPU_B
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > cpu_down():					.
> > .					   	.
> > .						.
> > stop_machine(): /* disables preemption,		.
> > 		 * and irqs */			.
> > .						.
> > .						.
> > take_cpu_down();				.
> > .						.
> > .						.
> > .						.
> > cpu_disable(); /*this removes cpu 		.
> > 		*from cpu_online_map 		.
> > 		*/				.
> > .						.
> > .						.
> > restart_machine(); /* enables irqs */		.
> > ------WINDOW DURING WHICH rcp->cpumask is stale ---------------
> > .						call_rcu();
> > .						/* disables irqs here */
> > .						.force_quiescent_state();
> > .CPU_DEAD:					.for_each_cpu(rcp->cpumask)
> > .						.   smp_send_reschedule();
> > .						.
> > .						.   WARN_ON() for offlined CPU!
> > .
> 
> Exactly. The call_rcu()s are coming from a different subsystem
> and can happen anytime during the CPU hotplug path. So, RCU subsystem
> doesn't have anything to do to keep rcu->cpumask consistent.
> It is *safe* even if we miss poking a cpu or two while
> forcing quiescent state in all CPUs. The worst that can happen
> is a delay in grace period. No correctness problem here.
> 

One question. What is preventing a CPU from clearing its mask after we
have checked whether it is online but before we have called into
smp_send_reschedule?

-- 
regards,
Dhaval
--
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/