On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 06:00:05AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 11:16:33AM +0200, pet...@infradead.org wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 11:03:25AM +0200, pet...@infradead.org wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 09:14:11AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > @@ -1287,8 +1287,6 @@ static int rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs(stru
> > > > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IRQ_WORK) &&
> > > > > !rdp->rcu_iw_pending && rdp->rcu_iw_gp_seq !=
> > > > > rnp->gp_seq &&
> > > > > (rnp->ffmask & rdp->grpmask)) {
> > > > > - init_irq_work(&rdp->rcu_iw, rcu_iw_handler);
> > > >
> > > > We are actually better off with the IRQ_WORK_INIT_HARD() here rather
> > > > than unconditionally at boot.
> > >
> > > Ah, but there isn't an init_irq_work() variant that does the HARD thing.
> >
> > Ah you meant doing:
> >
> > rdp->rcu_iw = IRQ_WORK_INIT_HARD(rcu_iw_handler)
> >
> > But then it is non-obvious how that doesn't trample state. I suppose
> > that rcu_iw_pending thing ensures that... I'll think about it.
>
> Yes, this is what I had in mind. And you are right, the point of the
> !rdp->rcu_iw_pending check is to prevent initialization while still
> in use.
So I checked my notes, and the plan was to replace rcu_iw_pending with
irq_work pending bit, but for that we musnt't clobber that state every
time.
