Re: [PATCH RFC v3 13/13] x86, arm64: Build Tasks RCU on Tasks Trace readers in trampolines
flat view
From: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org
Date: 2026-09-15 14:17:57
Also in:
bpf, lkml, rcu, xen-devel
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst index 8101fe6229d57..34b81512cc5f3 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst@@ -2756,6 +2756,26 @@ synchronize_rcu(), and rcu_barrier(), respectively. In three APIs are therefore implemented by separate functions that check for voluntary context switches. +Architectures that select ``CONFIG_HAVE_RCU_TRAMPOLINE_READERS`` keep the +same three APIs but implement the grace period differently +(``CONFIG_TASKS_RCU_TRAMPOLINE_READERS``). There, every trampoline whose +lifetime Tasks RCU guards enters a Tasks Trace RCU read-side critical +section (rcu_read_lock_trace() or its assembly equivalent) before calling +out and leaves it before returning, so a task anywhere inside such a +call-out is an ordinary Tasks Trace reader whether or not it is +preempted. The few trampoline instructions outside that reader can only +be occupied by a task that was interrupted there, so the grace period +additionally waits for each CPU to pass through a context switch, and the +irq-exit preemption path, the only switch that can catch a task inside +such text (rcu_tasks_trampoline_text()), briefly makes such a task a +holdout until it is next seen elsewhere. On such kernels an involuntary +context switch outside trampoline text *is* a Tasks-RCU quiescent state, +a Tasks RCU grace period no longer depends on how long any task runs +without sleeping, cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs() is unnecessary, and the +obligation moves to the trampolines: anything that relies on +synchronize_rcu_tasks() to protect code a task may be preempted in must +take the Tasks Trace reader (see register_ftrace_direct()).
^^^^^ Does this paragraph describe the complete set of options? The series itself includes kernel/kprobes.c:kprobe_optimizer(), which relies on synchronize_rcu_tasks() to protect instructions a task may be preempted in, but instead of taking a Tasks Trace reader it registers an address predicate and calls rcu_tasks_wait_irq_preempted(kprobe_in_optimized_region) before synchronize_rcu_tasks(). kernel/kprobes.c:526-539 documents that alternative: "kprobe_optimizer() relies on synchronize_rcu_tasks() to wait for tasks that ... the quiescent-state check asks this instead." Since this paragraph is the single place in Documentation/RCU that describes the new contract for HAVE_RCU_TRAMPOLINE_READERS architectures, a subsystem author reading it would conclude there is one way to comply and would get no pointer to rcu_tasks_wait_irq_preempted() or rcu_tasks_trampoline_text() for code that cannot take a reader. Could the paragraph mention the rcu_tasks_wait_irq_preempted() escape hatch, or soften to "must take the Tasks Trace reader or otherwise make its text known to the quiescent-state check"?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst index 4b30f701225fd..7082686cbd66d 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst +++ b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.rst@@ -252,7 +252,12 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome! a. If the updater uses synchronize_rcu_tasks() or call_rcu_tasks(), then the readers must refrain from executing voluntary context switches, that is, from - blocking. + blocking. On architectures that select + CONFIG_HAVE_RCU_TRAMPOLINE_READERS a reader must in + addition be a Tasks Trace RCU reader (that is what the + trampolines there do around their call-outs); an + arbitrary stretch of preemptible kernel code is not + protected.
^^^^^^^^^
Same question here. This text also states the obligation in absolute
terms ("a reader must in addition be a Tasks Trace RCU reader"), with
no mention of the rcu_tasks_wait_irq_preempted() alternative that
kprobe_optimizer() uses.
[ ... ]
---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/34975311706