On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 07:57:49AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:18:42AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > list_for_each_entry_rcu now has support to check for RCU reader sections
> > as well as lock. Just use the support in it, instead of explicitly
> > checking in the caller.
> 
> ...
> 
> >  #define assert_rcu_or_wq_mutex_or_pool_mutex(wq)                   \
> >     RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_held() &&                       \
> >                      !lockdep_is_held(&wq->mutex) &&                \
> 
> Can't you also get rid of this macro?

Could be. But that should be a different patch. I am only cleaning up the RCU
list lockdep checking in this series since the series introduces that
concept).  Please feel free to send a patch for the same.

Arguably, keeping the macro around also can be beneficial in the future.

> It's used in one place:
> 
> static struct pool_workqueue *unbound_pwq_by_node(struct workqueue_struct *wq,
>                                                   int node)
> {
>         assert_rcu_or_wq_mutex_or_pool_mutex(wq);
> 
>         /*
>          * XXX: @node can be NUMA_NO_NODE if CPU goes offline while a
>          * delayed item is pending.  The plan is to keep CPU -> NODE
>          * mapping valid and stable across CPU on/offlines.  Once that
>          * happens, this workaround can be removed.
>          */
>         if (unlikely(node == NUMA_NO_NODE))
>                 return wq->dfl_pwq;
> 
>         return rcu_dereference_raw(wq->numa_pwq_tbl[node]);
> }
> 
> Shouldn't we delete that assert and use
> 
> +     return rcu_dereference_check(wq->numa_pwq_tbl[node],
> +                     lockdep_is_held(&wq->mutex) ||
> +                     lockdep_is_held(&wq_pool_mutex));

Makes sense. This API also does sparse checking. Also hopefully no sparse
issues show up because rcu_dereference_check() but anyone such issues should
be fixed as well.

thanks,

 - Joel

> 

Reply via email to