Re: [PATCH V2 2/7] rcu: cleanup rcu_preempt_deferred_qs()

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:23:07 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > I'm still asking for more comments.
> > 
> > By now, I have received some precious comments, mainly due to my
> > stupid naming mistakes and a misleading changelog. I should have

How about typos?

> > updated all these with a new series patches. But I hope I
> > can polish more in the new patchset with more suggestions from
> > valuable comments, especially in x86,scheduler,percpu and rcu
> > areas.
> > 
> > I'm very obliged to hear anything.  


> 
> commit 23a58acde0eea57ac77377e5d50d9562b2dbdfaa
> Author: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:   Sat Feb 15 14:37:26 2020 -0800
> 
>     rcu: Don't set nesting depth negative in rcu_preempt_deferred_qs()
>     
>     Now that RCU flavors have been consolidated, an RCU-preempt
>     rcu_rea_unlock() in an interrupt or softirq handler cannot possibly

What's a "rea"? ;-)

-- Steve

>     end the RCU read-side critical section.  Consider the old vulnerability
>     involving rcu_preempt_deferred_qs() being invoked within such a handler
>     that interrupted an extended RCU read-side critical section, in which
>     a wakeup might be invoked with a scheduler lock held.  Because
>     rcu_read_unlock_special() no longer does wakeups in such situations,
>     it is no longer necessary for rcu_preempt_deferred_qs() to set the
>     nesting level negative.
>     
>     This commit therfore removes this recursion-protection code from
>     rcu_preempt_deferred_qs().
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
>