Re: [PATCH] rcu: Is it safe to enter an RCU read-side criticalsection?

From: Frederic Weisbecker
Date: Mon Sep 09 2013 - 08:45:57 EST


On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 08:39:26AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 14:13:31 +0200
> Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > > In any case the preempt_disable/enable pair there is just plain wrong as
> > > Eric pointed out.
> >
> > Check this:
> >
> > 34240697d619c439c55f21989680024dcb604aab "rcu: Disable preemption in rcu_is_cpu_idle()"
>
>
> Ug, and that patch does nothing to fix the bug that it reported!
>
> 1. Task A on CPU 1 enters rcu_is_cpu_idle() and picks up the
> pointer to CPU 1's per-CPU variables.
>
> 2. Task B preempts Task A and starts running on CPU 1.
>
> Let's say that B preempts Task A here:
>
> preempt_disable();
> ret = (atomic_read(&__get_cpu_var(rcu_dynticks).dynticks) & 0x1) == 0;
> preempt_enable();
> <preempt>
> return ret;
>
>
> 3. Task A migrates to CPU 2.
>
> 4. Task B blocks, leaving CPU 1 idle.
>
> 5. Task A continues execution on CPU 2, accessing CPU 1's
> dyntick-idle information using the pointer fetched in step 1 above,
> and finds that CPU 1 is idle.
>
> Yeah, and Task A is using the "ret" from CPU 1!
>
> 6. Task A therefore incorrectly concludes that it is executing in
> an extended quiescent state, possibly issuing a spurious splat.
>
> Therefore, this commit disables preemption within the
> rcu_is_cpu_idle() function.
>
> Where this commit is totally bogus. Sorry, but it is.
>
> This just proves that the caller of rcu_is_cpu_idle() must disable
> preemption itself for the entire time that it needs to use the result
> of rcu_is_cpu_idle().

Sorry, I don't understand your point here. What's wrong with checking the
ret from another CPU?
--
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/