Re: [PATCH v2] rcu: Remove redundant rcu_read_lock/unlock() in spin_lock critical sections

On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 10:40 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 2025-09-15 21:47:29 [+0800], pengdonglin wrote:
> > From: pengdonglin <[email protected]>
> >
> > Per Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst [1], since Linux 4.20's RCU
> > consolidation [2][3], RCU read-side critical sections include:
> >   - Explicit rcu_read_lock()
> >   - BH/interrupt/preemption-disabling regions
> >   - Spinlock critical sections (including CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT kernels [4])
> >
> > Thus, explicit rcu_read_lock()/unlock() calls within spin_lock*() regions are redundant.
> > This patch removes them, simplifying locking semantics while preserving RCU protection.
> >
> > [1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.17-rc5/source/Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst#L407
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> > [3] https://lwn.net/Articles/777036/
> > [4] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6435833a-bdcb-4114-b29d-28b7f436d47d@paulmck-laptop/
>
> What about something like this:
>
>   Since commit a8bb74acd8efe ("rcu: Consolidate RCU-sched update-side
>   function definitions") there is no difference between rcu_read_lock(),
>   rcu_read_lock_bh() and rcu_read_lock_sched() in terms of RCU read
>   section and the relevant grace period. That means that spin_lock(),
>   which implies rcu_read_lock_sched(), also implies rcu_read_lock().
>
>   There is no need no explicitly start a RCU read section if one has
>   already been started implicitly by spin_lock().
>
>   Simplify the code and remove the inner rcu_read_lock() invocation.
>
>
> The description above should make it clear what:
> - the intention is
> - the proposed solution to it and why it is correct.

Thanks, that's much clearer. I'll use this commit message in v3.

>
> You can't send a patch like this. You need to split it at the very least
> by subsystem. The networking bits need to follow to follow for instance
>    Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst

Thanks, I will split this into a series for v3.

>
> and so on.
>
> Sebastian

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-aio' in
the body to [email protected].  For more info on Linux AIO,
see: http://www.kvack.org/aio/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>