Le Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 04:56:41PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit : > > Alternatively the approach could be generalized to vanilla RCU, it could be > > possible to define a .text.rcu_no_qs section within which code running is > > considered as an RCU reader (with a pause while on the explicit RCU tasks > > section). It would be forbidden to voluntary sleep inside > > and to put explicit preemption points (CONFIG_PROVE_RCU could report > > misuses). > > > > Based on IP, RCU could consider those interrupted section as readers. This > > would > > require PREEMPT_RCU though. > > > > And then synchronize_rcu() would do the 1, 2, 4 jobs. > > If I am following correctly (ha!), sleepable BPF programs rule out use > of RCU in this manner. > > But your point is nevertheless valid, in that SRCU could be used. > And because rcu_read_lock_trace() is a thin wrapper around SRCU-fast, we > *might* be able to instead use rcu_read_lock_tasks_trace(), which would > skip the task-struct increment and decrement, saving a few instructions. > Then, instead of waiting for each task's counter to go to zero, instead > just invoke synchronize_rcu_tasks_trace(). > > Which is pretty close to what Josef is proposing, just with the new RCU > Tasks Trace read-side primitives. I think. ;-) > > This assumes that we do not need to flatten partially overlapping RCU > Tasks Trace readers into one big reader. > > Or am I missing something here?
Yes I think that's what Josef does in this patchset. The problem is about handling the few instructions: 1) between the begining of the trampoline and the call to rcu_read_lock_trace() 2) between the call to rcu_read_unlock_trace() and the end of the trampoline So what I'm proposing is to make those two parts implicit RCU read lock sections. So the whole trampoline would be .text.rcu_no_qs: .text.rcu_no_qs trampoline: __________________________________________________________________________________________ |Few instructions 1 | rcu_read_lock_trace() .... rcu_read_unlock_trace | Few instructions 2| ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Then when a tick fires, rcu_flavor_sched_clock_irq() discards the interrupted code as QS if the IP was within .text.rcu_no_qs _unless_ it is in the rcu_read_lock_trace. Both are easy and quick to verify. Also preempt_schedule_irq() would make sure to verify the same condition and enqueue the task as a GP blocker if preempting inside "Few instructions 1" or "Few instructions 2". And since RCU tasks already does a synchronize RCU before and after the scan, that's all we would have to do. Thanks. -- Frederic Weisbecker SUSE Labs
