[PATCH] rcutorture: Avoid problematic critical section nesting on RT

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 2021-08-19 23:11:12 [-0500], Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-08-19 at 11:20 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 05:47:08PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > On 2021-08-19 17:39:29 [+0200], To Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * Ideally these sequences would be detected in debug builds
> > > > +	 * (regardless of RT), but until then don't stop testing
> > > > +	 * them on non-RT.
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)) {
> > > > +		/*
> > > > +		 * Can't release the outermost rcu lock in an irq disabled
> > > > +		 * section without preemption also being disabled, if irqs
> > > > +		 * had ever been enabled during this RCU critical section
> > > > +		 * (could leak a special flag and delay reporting the qs).
> > > > +		 */
> > > > +		if ((oldmask & RCUTORTURE_RDR_RCU) &&
> > > > +		    (mask & RCUTORTURE_RDR_IRQ) &&
> > > > +		    !(mask & preempts))
> > > > +			mask |= RCUTORTURE_RDR_RCU;
> > > 
> > > This piece above, I don't understand. I had it running for a while and
> > > it didn't explode. Let me try TREE01 for 30min without that piece.
> > 
> > This might be historical.  There was a time when interrupts being
> > disabled across rcu_read_unlock() meant that preemption had to have
> > been disabled across the entire RCU read-side critical section.
> > 
> > I am not seeing a purpose for it now, but I could easily be missing
> > something, especially given my tenuous grasp of RT.
> 
> Yeah, I think this was to deal with not having the irq work stuff in RT
> at the time.

Good. Thank you for the confirmation. 
I run (without the hunk above) 2x 6h of TREE01 and 4x 6h of TREE06 and
it looked good.

> -Scott

Sebastian