On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 09:10:45AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 02:26:14PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote: > > The call to rcu_cpu_starting() in secondary_start_kernel() is not early > > enough in the CPU-hotplug onlining process, which results in lockdep > > splats as follows: > > > > WARNING: suspicious RCU usage > > ----------------------------- > > kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3497 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! > > > > other info that might help us debug this: > > > > RCU used illegally from offline CPU! > > rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1 > > no locks held by swapper/1/0. > > > > Call trace: > > dump_backtrace+0x0/0x3c8 > > show_stack+0x14/0x60 > > dump_stack+0x14c/0x1c4 > > lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0x134/0x14c > > __lock_acquire+0x1c30/0x2600 > > lock_acquire+0x274/0xc48 > > _raw_spin_lock+0xc8/0x140 > > vprintk_emit+0x90/0x3d0 > > vprintk_default+0x34/0x40 > > vprintk_func+0x378/0x590 > > printk+0xa8/0xd4 > > __cpuinfo_store_cpu+0x71c/0x868 > > cpuinfo_store_cpu+0x2c/0xc8 > > secondary_start_kernel+0x244/0x318 > > > > This is avoided by moving the call to rcu_cpu_starting up near the > > beginning of the secondary_start_kernel() function. > > Hmm, it's not really a move though -- we'll end up calling this thing twice > afaict. It would be better to make sure we've called notify_cpu_starting() > early enough. Can we do that instead?
It uses a per-CPU variable so that RCU pays attention only to the first call to rcu_cpu_starting() if there is more than one of them. This is even intentional, due to there being a generic arch-independent call to rcu_cpu_starting() in notify_cpu_starting(). So multiple calls to rcu_cpu_starting() are fine by design. Thanx, Paul