On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 09:20:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 08:43:51PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Oh well... I personally do not think this is what we want... Can't
> > we just add the stupid rcu_sync_enter() into cgroup_init() at least
> > for now? Yes, this means the unnecessary .sync() at boot time, but
> > it will go away after cleanups I am going to send.
>
> Something like so then?
>
> ---
> --- a/include/linux/rcu_sync.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcu_sync.h
> @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ static inline bool rcu_sync_is_idle(stru
> }
>
> extern void rcu_sync_init(struct rcu_sync *, enum rcu_sync_type);
> +extern void rcu_sync_sabotage(struct rcu_sync *);
> extern void rcu_sync_enter(struct rcu_sync *);
> extern void rcu_sync_exit(struct rcu_sync *);
> extern void rcu_sync_dtor(struct rcu_sync *);
> --- a/kernel/cgroup.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
> @@ -5609,6 +5609,8 @@ int __init cgroup_init(void)
> BUG_ON(cgroup_init_cftypes(NULL, cgroup_dfl_base_files));
> BUG_ON(cgroup_init_cftypes(NULL, cgroup_legacy_base_files));
>
> + rcu_sync_sabotage(&cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem.rss);
With a name like that...
> +
> get_user_ns(init_cgroup_ns.user_ns);
>
> mutex_lock(&cgroup_mutex);
> --- a/kernel/rcu/sync.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/sync.c
> @@ -83,6 +83,21 @@ void rcu_sync_init(struct rcu_sync *rsp,
> }
>
> /**
> + * rcu_sync_sabotage() - Sabotage a fresh rcu_sync instance
> + * @rsp: Pointer to rcu_sync structure to be sabotaged
> + *
> + * Must be called after rcu_sync_init() and before first use.
> + *
> + * Ensures rcu_sync_is_idle() returns false and rcu_sync_{enter,exit}() pairs
> + * turn into NO-OPs.
> + */
> +void rcu_sync_sabotage(struct rcu_sync *rsp)
> +{
> + rsp->gp_count++;
> + rsp->gp_state = !GP_IDLE;
??? A very strange way to say GP_PENDING. A new GP_DISABLED, perhaps?
Thanx, Paul
> +}
> +
> +/**
> * rcu_sync_enter() - Force readers onto slowpath
> * @rsp: Pointer to rcu_sync structure to use for synchronization
> *
>
