lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 0/4] Forbid static SRCU use in modules

----- On Apr 7, 2019, at 3:32 PM, Joel Fernandes, Google joel@joelfernandes.org wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 03:26:16PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> ----- On Apr 7, 2019, at 9:59 AM, paulmck paulmck@linux.ibm.com wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 06:39:41AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Apr 06, 2019 at 07:06:13PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> >
>> > [ . . . ]
>> >
>> >> > > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
>> >> > > b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
>> >> > > index f8f6f04c4453..c2d919a1566e 100644
>> >> > > --- a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
>> >> > > +++ b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
>> >> > > @@ -338,6 +338,10 @@
>> >> > > KEEP(*(__tracepoints_ptrs)) /* Tracepoints: pointer array */ \
>> >> > > __stop___tracepoints_ptrs = .; \
>> >> > > *(__tracepoints_strings)/* Tracepoints: strings */ \
>> >> > > + . = ALIGN(8); \
>> >> > > + __start___srcu_struct = .; \
>> >> > > + *(___srcu_struct_ptrs) \
>> >> > > + __end___srcu_struct = .; \
>> >> > > } \
>> >> >
>> >> > This vmlinux linker modification is not needed. I tested without it and srcu
>> >> > torture works fine with rcutorture built as a module. Putting further prints
>> >> > in kernel/module.c verified that the kernel is able to find the srcu structs
>> >> > just fine. You could squash the below patch into this one or apply it on top
>> >> > of the dev branch.
>> >>
>> >> Good point, given that otherwise FORTRAN named common blocks would not
>> >> work.
>> >>
>> >> But isn't one advantage of leaving that stuff in the RO_DATA_SECTION()
>> >> macro that it can be mapped read-only? Or am I suffering from excessive
>> >> optimism?
>> >
>> > And to answer the other question, in the case where I am suffering from
>> > excessive optimism, it should be a separate commit. Please see below
>> > for the updated original commit thus far.
>> >
>> > And may I have your Tested-by?
>>
>> Just to confirm: does the cleanup performed in the modules going
>> notifier end up acting as a barrier first before freeing the memory ?
>> If not, is it explicitly stated that a barrier must be issued before
>> module unload ?
>>
>
> You mean rcu_barrier? It is mentioned in the documentation that this is the
> responsibility of the module writer to prevent delays for all modules.

It's a srcu barrier yes. Considering it would be a barrier specific to the
srcu domain within that module, I don't see how it would cause delays for
"all" modules if we implicitly issue the barrier on module unload. What
am I missing ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-07 22:42    [W:0.078 / U:0.284 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site