X-Git-Url: https://git.kernel.dk/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=kernel%2Frcutree.c;h=32618b3fe4e6aa375b3cd3bde1acd12bdd4237b3;hb=aeac589a74b91c4c07458272767e089810fbd23d;hp=64eaafb6c8f70c9797841d81b40898598650f812;hpb=eb75767be0e514f97bf1b5cec763696cfc7f7e2a;p=linux-2.6-block.git

diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
index 64eaafb6c8f7..32618b3fe4e6 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
@@ -54,6 +54,7 @@
 #include <linux/stop_machine.h>
 #include <linux/random.h>
 #include <linux/ftrace_event.h>
+#include <linux/suspend.h>
 
 #include "rcutree.h"
 #include <trace/events/rcu.h>
@@ -1556,10 +1557,12 @@ rcu_start_gp_advanced(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp,
 
 	/*
 	 * We can't do wakeups while holding the rnp->lock, as that
-	 * could cause possible deadlocks with the rq->lock. Deter
-	 * the wakeup to interrupt context.
+	 * could cause possible deadlocks with the rq->lock. Defer
+	 * the wakeup to interrupt context.  And don't bother waking
+	 * up the running kthread.
 	 */
-	irq_work_queue(&rsp->wakeup_work);
+	if (current != rsp->gp_kthread)
+		irq_work_queue(&rsp->wakeup_work);
 }
 
 /*
@@ -2290,6 +2293,13 @@ static void __call_rcu_core(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_data *rdp,
 	}
 }
 
+/*
+ * RCU callback function to leak a callback.
+ */
+static void rcu_leak_callback(struct rcu_head *rhp)
+{
+}
+
 /*
  * Helper function for call_rcu() and friends.  The cpu argument will
  * normally be -1, indicating "currently running CPU".  It may specify
@@ -2304,7 +2314,12 @@ __call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, void (*func)(struct rcu_head *rcu),
 	struct rcu_data *rdp;
 
 	WARN_ON_ONCE((unsigned long)head & 0x3); /* Misaligned rcu_head! */
-	debug_rcu_head_queue(head);
+	if (debug_rcu_head_queue(head)) {
+		/* Probable double call_rcu(), so leak the callback. */
+		ACCESS_ONCE(head->func) = rcu_leak_callback;
+		WARN_ONCE(1, "__call_rcu(): Leaked duplicate callback\n");
+		return;
+	}
 	head->func = func;
 	head->next = NULL;
 
@@ -2789,9 +2804,20 @@ static void _rcu_barrier(struct rcu_state *rsp)
 	 * transition.  The "if" expression below therefore rounds the old
 	 * value up to the next even number and adds two before comparing.
 	 */
-	snap_done = ACCESS_ONCE(rsp->n_barrier_done);
+	snap_done = rsp->n_barrier_done;
 	_rcu_barrier_trace(rsp, "Check", -1, snap_done);
-	if (ULONG_CMP_GE(snap_done, ((snap + 1) & ~0x1) + 2)) {
+
+	/*
+	 * If the value in snap is odd, we needed to wait for the current
+	 * rcu_barrier() to complete, then wait for the next one, in other
+	 * words, we need the value of snap_done to be three larger than
+	 * the value of snap.  On the other hand, if the value in snap is
+	 * even, we only had to wait for the next rcu_barrier() to complete,
+	 * in other words, we need the value of snap_done to be only two
+	 * greater than the value of snap.  The "(snap + 3) & ~0x1" computes
+	 * this for us (thank you, Linus!).
+	 */
+	if (ULONG_CMP_GE(snap_done, (snap + 3) & ~0x1)) {
 		_rcu_barrier_trace(rsp, "EarlyExit", -1, snap_done);
 		smp_mb(); /* caller's subsequent code after above check. */
 		mutex_unlock(&rsp->barrier_mutex);
@@ -3020,6 +3046,25 @@ static int rcu_cpu_notify(struct notifier_block *self,
 	return NOTIFY_OK;
 }
 
+static int rcu_pm_notify(struct notifier_block *self,
+			 unsigned long action, void *hcpu)
+{
+	switch (action) {
+	case PM_HIBERNATION_PREPARE:
+	case PM_SUSPEND_PREPARE:
+		if (nr_cpu_ids <= 256) /* Expediting bad for large systems. */
+			rcu_expedited = 1;
+		break;
+	case PM_POST_HIBERNATION:
+	case PM_POST_SUSPEND:
+		rcu_expedited = 0;
+		break;
+	default:
+		break;
+	}
+	return NOTIFY_OK;
+}
+
 /*
  * Spawn the kthread that handles this RCU flavor's grace periods.
  */
@@ -3261,6 +3306,7 @@ void __init rcu_init(void)
 	 * or the scheduler are operational.
 	 */
 	cpu_notifier(rcu_cpu_notify, 0);
+	pm_notifier(rcu_pm_notify, 0);
 	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
 		rcu_cpu_notify(NULL, CPU_UP_PREPARE, (void *)(long)cpu);
 }