Re: [PATCH v7 3/5] rust: sync: Add abstraction for rcu_barrier()
"Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]> Wed, 29 Jul 2026 11:58:44 -0700
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.rcu,org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-media,org.kernel.vger.rust-for-linux |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <f680fb1b-ecbc-47b4-a252-b792933bfe3e@paulmck-laptop> |
On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 07:47:46PM +0100, Gary Guo wrote: > On Wed Jul 29, 2026 at 6:18 PM BST, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 11:45:40AM +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote: > >> rcu_barrier() is a frequently used C function which is always safe to be > >> called. > > > > Just checking... Here "always safe" means only from task level, with BH, > > preemption, and interrupts all enabled, correct? > > > > In contrast, if you do this: > > > > preempt_disable(); > > rcu_barrier(); > > preempt_enable(); > > > > the results won't be safe. > > This is same for all sleepable functions. In order to avoid having to mark all > sleeping function unsafe, we've decided that sleeping from non-preemptable > context is "safe", but is a bug regardless. Got it, thank you! I tried to resist parameterizing "safe" over things like execution contexts, but obviously failed to do so. Besides, there is a name for that sort of thing, and that name is "precondition". ;-) Adding Julia Lawall on CC based on her recent work with preconditions, which might be an act of kindness or of vandalism. You guys get to decide. ;-) Thanx, Paul