| Message ID | 20221130181325.1012760-14-paulmck@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Lazy call_rcu() updates for v6.2 | expand |
Hi Eric, Could you give your ACK for this patch? The networking testing passed on ChromeOS and it has been in -next for some time so has gotten testing there. The CONFIG option is default disabled. Thanks a lot, - Joel On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 6:13 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote: > > From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org> > > Earlier commits in this series allow battery-powered systems to build > their kernels with the default-disabled CONFIG_RCU_LAZY=y Kconfig option. > This Kconfig option causes call_rcu() to delay its callbacks in order > to batch them. This means that a given RCU grace period covers more > callbacks, thus reducing the number of grace periods, in turn reducing > the amount of energy consumed, which increases battery lifetime which > can be a very good thing. This is not a subtle effect: In some important > use cases, the battery lifetime is increased by more than 10%. > > This CONFIG_RCU_LAZY=y option is available only for CPUs that offload > callbacks, for example, CPUs mentioned in the rcu_nocbs kernel boot > parameter passed to kernels built with CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y. > > Delaying callbacks is normally not a problem because most callbacks do > nothing but free memory. If the system is short on memory, a shrinker > will kick all currently queued lazy callbacks out of their laziness, > thus freeing their memory in short order. Similarly, the rcu_barrier() > function, which blocks until all currently queued callbacks are invoked, > will also kick lazy callbacks, thus enabling rcu_barrier() to complete > in a timely manner. > > However, there are some cases where laziness is not a good option. > For example, synchronize_rcu() invokes call_rcu(), and blocks until > the newly queued callback is invoked. It would not be a good for > synchronize_rcu() to block for ten seconds, even on an idle system. > Therefore, synchronize_rcu() invokes call_rcu_hurry() instead of > call_rcu(). The arrival of a non-lazy call_rcu_hurry() callback on a > given CPU kicks any lazy callbacks that might be already queued on that > CPU. After all, if there is going to be a grace period, all callbacks > might as well get full benefit from it. > > Yes, this could be done the other way around by creating a > call_rcu_lazy(), but earlier experience with this approach and > feedback at the 2022 Linux Plumbers Conference shifted the approach > to call_rcu() being lazy with call_rcu_hurry() for the few places > where laziness is inappropriate. > > And another call_rcu() instance that cannot be lazy is the one > in rxrpc_kill_connection(), which sometimes does a wakeup > that should not be unduly delayed. > > Therefore, make rxrpc_kill_connection() use call_rcu_hurry() in order > to revert to the old behavior. > > [ paulmck: Apply s/call_rcu_flush/call_rcu_hurry/ feedback from Tejun Heo. ] > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> > Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> > Cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> > Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> > Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> > Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> > Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> > Cc: <linux-afs@lists.infradead.org> > Cc: <netdev@vger.kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> > --- > net/rxrpc/conn_object.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/net/rxrpc/conn_object.c b/net/rxrpc/conn_object.c > index 22089e37e97f0..9c5fae9ca106c 100644 > --- a/net/rxrpc/conn_object.c > +++ b/net/rxrpc/conn_object.c > @@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ void rxrpc_kill_connection(struct rxrpc_connection *conn) > * must carry a ref on the connection to prevent us getting here whilst > * it is queued or running. > */ > - call_rcu(&conn->rcu, rxrpc_destroy_connection); > + call_rcu_hurry(&conn->rcu, rxrpc_destroy_connection); > } > > /* > -- > 2.31.1.189.g2e36527f23 >
Ah, I see a slightly better name has been chosen ;) Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 7:16 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > Could you give your ACK for this patch? > > The networking testing passed on ChromeOS and it has been in -next for > some time so has gotten testing there. The CONFIG option is default > disabled. > > Thanks a lot, > > - Joel > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 6:13 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org> > > > > Earlier commits in this series allow battery-powered systems to build > > their kernels with the default-disabled CONFIG_RCU_LAZY=y Kconfig option. > > This Kconfig option causes call_rcu() to delay its callbacks in order > > to batch them. This means that a given RCU grace period covers more > > callbacks, thus reducing the number of grace periods, in turn reducing > > the amount of energy consumed, which increases battery lifetime which > > can be a very good thing. This is not a subtle effect: In some important > > use cases, the battery lifetime is increased by more than 10%. > > > > This CONFIG_RCU_LAZY=y option is available only for CPUs that offload > > callbacks, for example, CPUs mentioned in the rcu_nocbs kernel boot > > parameter passed to kernels built with CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y. > > > > Delaying callbacks is normally not a problem because most callbacks do > > nothing but free memory. If the system is short on memory, a shrinker > > will kick all currently queued lazy callbacks out of their laziness, > > thus freeing their memory in short order. Similarly, the rcu_barrier() > > function, which blocks until all currently queued callbacks are invoked, > > will also kick lazy callbacks, thus enabling rcu_barrier() to complete > > in a timely manner. > > > > However, there are some cases where laziness is not a good option. > > For example, synchronize_rcu() invokes call_rcu(), and blocks until > > the newly queued callback is invoked. It would not be a good for > > synchronize_rcu() to block for ten seconds, even on an idle system. > > Therefore, synchronize_rcu() invokes call_rcu_hurry() instead of > > call_rcu(). The arrival of a non-lazy call_rcu_hurry() callback on a > > given CPU kicks any lazy callbacks that might be already queued on that > > CPU. After all, if there is going to be a grace period, all callbacks > > might as well get full benefit from it. > > > > Yes, this could be done the other way around by creating a > > call_rcu_lazy(), but earlier experience with this approach and > > feedback at the 2022 Linux Plumbers Conference shifted the approach > > to call_rcu() being lazy with call_rcu_hurry() for the few places > > where laziness is inappropriate. > > > > And another call_rcu() instance that cannot be lazy is the one > > in rxrpc_kill_connection(), which sometimes does a wakeup > > that should not be unduly delayed. > > > > Therefore, make rxrpc_kill_connection() use call_rcu_hurry() in order > > to revert to the old behavior. > > > > [ paulmck: Apply s/call_rcu_flush/call_rcu_hurry/ feedback from Tejun Heo. ] > > > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> > > Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> > > Cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> > > Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> > > Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> > > Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> > > Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> > > Cc: <linux-afs@lists.infradead.org> > > Cc: <netdev@vger.kernel.org> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> > > --- > > net/rxrpc/conn_object.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/net/rxrpc/conn_object.c b/net/rxrpc/conn_object.c > > index 22089e37e97f0..9c5fae9ca106c 100644 > > --- a/net/rxrpc/conn_object.c > > +++ b/net/rxrpc/conn_object.c > > @@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ void rxrpc_kill_connection(struct rxrpc_connection *conn) > > * must carry a ref on the connection to prevent us getting here whilst > > * it is queued or running. > > */ > > - call_rcu(&conn->rcu, rxrpc_destroy_connection); > > + call_rcu_hurry(&conn->rcu, rxrpc_destroy_connection); > > } > > > > /* > > -- > > 2.31.1.189.g2e36527f23 > >
Note that this conflicts with my patch: rxrpc: Don't hold a ref for connection workqueue https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/commit/?h=rxrpc-next&id=450b00011290660127c2d76f5c5ed264126eb229 which should render it unnecessary. It's a little ahead of yours in the net-next queue, if that means anything. David
> On Nov 30, 2022, at 2:09 PM, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote: > > Note that this conflicts with my patch: Oh. I don’t see any review or Ack tags on it. Is it still under review? Thanks, - Joel > > rxrpc: Don't hold a ref for connection workqueue > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/commit/?h=rxrpc-next&id=450b00011290660127c2d76f5c5ed264126eb229 > > which should render it unnecessary. It's a little ahead of yours in the > net-next queue, if that means anything. > > David >
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 07:09:04PM +0000, David Howells wrote: > Note that this conflicts with my patch: > > rxrpc: Don't hold a ref for connection workqueue > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/commit/?h=rxrpc-next&id=450b00011290660127c2d76f5c5ed264126eb229 > > which should render it unnecessary. It's a little ahead of yours in the > net-next queue, if that means anything. OK, I will drop this patch in favor of yours, thank you! Thanx, Paul
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 02:20:52PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > On Nov 30, 2022, at 2:09 PM, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > Note that this conflicts with my patch: > > Oh. I don’t see any review or Ack tags on it. Is it still under review? So what I have done is to drop this patch from the series, but to also preserve it for posterity at -rcu branch lazy-obsolete.2022.11.30a. It looks like that wakeup is still delayed, but I could easily be missing something. Joel, could you please test the effects of having the current lazy branch, but also David Howells's patch? That way, if there is an issue, we can work it sooner rather than later, and if it all works fine, we can stop worrying about it. ;-) Thanx, Paul > Thanks, > > - Joel > > > > > > > rxrpc: Don't hold a ref for connection workqueue > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/commit/?h=rxrpc-next&id=450b00011290660127c2d76f5c5ed264126eb229 > > > > which should render it unnecessary. It's a little ahead of yours in the > > net-next queue, if that means anything. > > > > David > >
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 07:37:07PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Ah, I see a slightly better name has been chosen ;) call_rcu_vite()? call_rcu_tres_grande_vitesse()? call_rcu_tgv()? Sorry, couldn't resist! ;-) Thanx, Paul > Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 7:16 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > Could you give your ACK for this patch? > > > > The networking testing passed on ChromeOS and it has been in -next for > > some time so has gotten testing there. The CONFIG option is default > > disabled. > > > > Thanks a lot, > > > > - Joel > > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 6:13 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org> > > > > > > Earlier commits in this series allow battery-powered systems to build > > > their kernels with the default-disabled CONFIG_RCU_LAZY=y Kconfig option. > > > This Kconfig option causes call_rcu() to delay its callbacks in order > > > to batch them. This means that a given RCU grace period covers more > > > callbacks, thus reducing the number of grace periods, in turn reducing > > > the amount of energy consumed, which increases battery lifetime which > > > can be a very good thing. This is not a subtle effect: In some important > > > use cases, the battery lifetime is increased by more than 10%. > > > > > > This CONFIG_RCU_LAZY=y option is available only for CPUs that offload > > > callbacks, for example, CPUs mentioned in the rcu_nocbs kernel boot > > > parameter passed to kernels built with CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y. > > > > > > Delaying callbacks is normally not a problem because most callbacks do > > > nothing but free memory. If the system is short on memory, a shrinker > > > will kick all currently queued lazy callbacks out of their laziness, > > > thus freeing their memory in short order. Similarly, the rcu_barrier() > > > function, which blocks until all currently queued callbacks are invoked, > > > will also kick lazy callbacks, thus enabling rcu_barrier() to complete > > > in a timely manner. > > > > > > However, there are some cases where laziness is not a good option. > > > For example, synchronize_rcu() invokes call_rcu(), and blocks until > > > the newly queued callback is invoked. It would not be a good for > > > synchronize_rcu() to block for ten seconds, even on an idle system. > > > Therefore, synchronize_rcu() invokes call_rcu_hurry() instead of > > > call_rcu(). The arrival of a non-lazy call_rcu_hurry() callback on a > > > given CPU kicks any lazy callbacks that might be already queued on that > > > CPU. After all, if there is going to be a grace period, all callbacks > > > might as well get full benefit from it. > > > > > > Yes, this could be done the other way around by creating a > > > call_rcu_lazy(), but earlier experience with this approach and > > > feedback at the 2022 Linux Plumbers Conference shifted the approach > > > to call_rcu() being lazy with call_rcu_hurry() for the few places > > > where laziness is inappropriate. > > > > > > And another call_rcu() instance that cannot be lazy is the one > > > in rxrpc_kill_connection(), which sometimes does a wakeup > > > that should not be unduly delayed. > > > > > > Therefore, make rxrpc_kill_connection() use call_rcu_hurry() in order > > > to revert to the old behavior. > > > > > > [ paulmck: Apply s/call_rcu_flush/call_rcu_hurry/ feedback from Tejun Heo. ] > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> > > > Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> > > > Cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> > > > Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> > > > Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> > > > Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> > > > Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> > > > Cc: <linux-afs@lists.infradead.org> > > > Cc: <netdev@vger.kernel.org> > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> > > > --- > > > net/rxrpc/conn_object.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/net/rxrpc/conn_object.c b/net/rxrpc/conn_object.c > > > index 22089e37e97f0..9c5fae9ca106c 100644 > > > --- a/net/rxrpc/conn_object.c > > > +++ b/net/rxrpc/conn_object.c > > > @@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ void rxrpc_kill_connection(struct rxrpc_connection *conn) > > > * must carry a ref on the connection to prevent us getting here whilst > > > * it is queued or running. > > > */ > > > - call_rcu(&conn->rcu, rxrpc_destroy_connection); > > > + call_rcu_hurry(&conn->rcu, rxrpc_destroy_connection); > > > } > > > > > > /* > > > -- > > > 2.31.1.189.g2e36527f23 > > >
On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 13:45:52 -0800 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 07:37:07PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > Ah, I see a slightly better name has been chosen ;) > > call_rcu_vite()? call_rcu_tres_grande_vitesse()? call_rcu_tgv()? > > Sorry, couldn't resist! ;-) > > call_rcu_twitter_2_0() ? -- Steve
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 04:49:49PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 13:45:52 -0800 > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 07:37:07PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > Ah, I see a slightly better name has been chosen ;) > > > > call_rcu_vite()? call_rcu_tres_grande_vitesse()? call_rcu_tgv()? > > > > Sorry, couldn't resist! ;-) > > call_rcu_twitter_2_0() ? call_rcu_grace_period_finishes_before_it_starts() ? Thanx, Paul
> On Nov 30, 2022, at 4:43 PM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 02:20:52PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> >> >>>> On Nov 30, 2022, at 2:09 PM, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> Note that this conflicts with my patch: >> >> Oh. I don’t see any review or Ack tags on it. Is it still under review? > > So what I have done is to drop this patch from the series, but to also > preserve it for posterity at -rcu branch lazy-obsolete.2022.11.30a. > > It looks like that wakeup is still delayed, but I could easily be > missing something. > > Joel, could you please test the effects of having the current lazy branch, > but also David Howells's patch? That way, if there is an issue, we can > work it sooner rather than later, and if it all works fine, we can stop > worrying about it. ;-) Sure, I will kick off the failing test and see if it passes with Davids patch. Will let you know. Thanks, - Joel > Thanx, Paul > >> Thanks, >> >> - Joel >> >> >> >>> >>> rxrpc: Don't hold a ref for connection workqueue >>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/commit/?h=rxrpc-next&id=450b00011290660127c2d76f5c5ed264126eb229 >>> >>> which should render it unnecessary. It's a little ahead of yours in the >>> net-next queue, if that means anything. >>> >>> David >>>
Hi David, On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 7:09 PM David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote: > > Note that this conflicts with my patch: > > rxrpc: Don't hold a ref for connection workqueue > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/commit/?h=rxrpc-next&id=450b00011290660127c2d76f5c5ed264126eb229 > > which should render it unnecessary. It's a little ahead of yours in the > net-next queue, if that means anything. Could you clarify why it is unnecessary? After your patch, you are still doing a wake up in your call_rcu() callback: - ASSERTCMP(refcount_read(&conn->ref), ==, 0); + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&rxnet->nr_conns)) + wake_up_var(&rxnet->nr_conns); +} Are you saying the code can now tolerate delays? What if the RCU callback is invoked after arbitrarily long delays making the sleeping process to wait? If you agree, you can convert the call_rcu() to call_rcu_hurry() in your patch itself. Would you be willing to do that? If not, that's totally OK and I can send a patch later once yours is in (after further testing). Thanks, - Joel
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote: > > Note that this conflicts with my patch: > > > > rxrpc: Don't hold a ref for connection workqueue > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/commit/?h=rxrpc-next&id=450b00011290660127c2d76f5c5ed264126eb229 > > > > which should render it unnecessary. It's a little ahead of yours in the > > net-next queue, if that means anything. > > Could you clarify why it is unnecessary? Rather than tearing down parts of the connection it only logs a trace line, frees the memory and decrements the counter on the namespace. This it used to account that all the pieces of memory allocated in that namespace are gone before the namespace is removed to check for leaks. The RCU cleanup used to use some other stuff (such as the peer hash) in the rxrpc_net struct but no longer will after the patches I submitted. > After your patch, you are still doing a wake up in your call_rcu() callback: > > - ASSERTCMP(refcount_read(&conn->ref), ==, 0); > + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&rxnet->nr_conns)) > + wake_up_var(&rxnet->nr_conns); > +} > > Are you saying the code can now tolerate delays? What if the RCU > callback is invoked after arbitrarily long delays making the sleeping > process to wait? True. But that now only holds up the destruction of a net namespace and the removal of the rxrpc module. > If you agree, you can convert the call_rcu() to call_rcu_hurry() in > your patch itself. Would you be willing to do that? If not, that's > totally OK and I can send a patch later once yours is in (after > further testing). I can add it to part 4 (see my rxrpc-ringless-5 branch) if it is necessary. David
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 11:05 PM David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote: > > Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote: > > > > Note that this conflicts with my patch: > > > > > > rxrpc: Don't hold a ref for connection workqueue > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/commit/?h=rxrpc-next&id=450b00011290660127c2d76f5c5ed264126eb229 > > > > > > which should render it unnecessary. It's a little ahead of yours in the > > > net-next queue, if that means anything. > > > > Could you clarify why it is unnecessary? > > Rather than tearing down parts of the connection it only logs a trace line, > frees the memory and decrements the counter on the namespace. This it used to > account that all the pieces of memory allocated in that namespace are gone > before the namespace is removed to check for leaks. The RCU cleanup used to > use some other stuff (such as the peer hash) in the rxrpc_net struct but no > longer will after the patches I submitted. > > > After your patch, you are still doing a wake up in your call_rcu() callback: > > > > - ASSERTCMP(refcount_read(&conn->ref), ==, 0); > > + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&rxnet->nr_conns)) > > + wake_up_var(&rxnet->nr_conns); > > +} > > > > Are you saying the code can now tolerate delays? What if the RCU > > callback is invoked after arbitrarily long delays making the sleeping > > process to wait? > > True. But that now only holds up the destruction of a net namespace and the > removal of the rxrpc module. > > > If you agree, you can convert the call_rcu() to call_rcu_hurry() in > > your patch itself. Would you be willing to do that? If not, that's > > totally OK and I can send a patch later once yours is in (after > > further testing). > > I can add it to part 4 (see my rxrpc-ringless-5 branch) if it is necessary. Ok sounds good, on module removal the rcu_barrier() will flush out pending callbacks so that should not be an issue. Based on your message, I think we can drop this patch then. Since Paul is already dropping it, no other action is needed. (I just realized my patch was not fixing a test failure, like the other net ones did, but rather we found the issue by static analysis -- i.e. programmatically auditing all callbacks in the kernel doing wake ups). thanks, - Joel
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 11:05:22PM +0000, David Howells wrote: > Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote: [...] > > After your patch, you are still doing a wake up in your call_rcu() callback: > > > > - ASSERTCMP(refcount_read(&conn->ref), ==, 0); > > + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&rxnet->nr_conns)) > > + wake_up_var(&rxnet->nr_conns); > > +} > > > > Are you saying the code can now tolerate delays? What if the RCU > > callback is invoked after arbitrarily long delays making the sleeping > > process to wait? > > True. But that now only holds up the destruction of a net namespace and the > removal of the rxrpc module. I am guessing not destructing the net namespace soon enough is not an issue. I do remember (in a different patch) that not tearing down networking things have a weird side effect to tools that require state to disappear.. > > If you agree, you can convert the call_rcu() to call_rcu_hurry() in > > your patch itself. Would you be willing to do that? If not, that's > > totally OK and I can send a patch later once yours is in (after > > further testing). > > I can add it to part 4 (see my rxrpc-ringless-5 branch) if it is necessary. I am guessing the conversion to call_rcu_hurry() is still not necessary here, if it is then consider the conversion. But yeah feel free to ignore this, I am just pinging here so that it did not slip through the cracks. thanks, - Joel
diff --git a/net/rxrpc/conn_object.c b/net/rxrpc/conn_object.c index 22089e37e97f0..9c5fae9ca106c 100644 --- a/net/rxrpc/conn_object.c +++ b/net/rxrpc/conn_object.c @@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ void rxrpc_kill_connection(struct rxrpc_connection *conn) * must carry a ref on the connection to prevent us getting here whilst * it is queued or running. */ - call_rcu(&conn->rcu, rxrpc_destroy_connection); + call_rcu_hurry(&conn->rcu, rxrpc_destroy_connection); } /*