From: Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>
Subject: [RFC PATCH RT 3/4] rcu: unlock special: Treat irq and preempt disabled the same
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 20:19:07 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190619011908.25026-4-swood@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190619011908.25026-1-swood@redhat.com>
[Note: Just before posting this I noticed that the invoke_rcu_core stuff
is part of the latest RCU pull request, and it has a patch that
addresses this in a more complicated way that appears to deal with the
bare irq-disabled sequence as well.
Assuming we need/want to support such sequences, is the
invoke_rcu_core() call actually going to result in scheduling any
sooner? resched_curr() just does the same setting of need_resched
when it's the same cpu.
]
Since special should never be getting set inside an irqs-disabled
critical section, this is safe as long as there are no sequences of
rcu_read_lock()/local_irq_disable()/rcu_read_unlock()/local_irq_enable()
(without preempt_disable() wrapped around the IRQ disabling, as spinlocks
do). If there are such sequences, then the grace period may be delayed
until the next time need_resched is checked.
This is needed because otherwise, in a sequence such as:
1. rcu_read_lock()
2. *preempt*, set rcu_read_unlock_special.b.blocked
3. preempt_disable()
4. rcu_read_unlock()
5. preempt_enable()
...rcu_read_unlock_special.b.blocked will not be cleared during
step 4, because of the disabled preemption. If an interrupt is then
taken between steps 4 and 5, and that interrupt enters scheduler code
that takes pi/rq locks, and an rcu read lock inside that, then when
dropping that rcu read lock we will end up in rcu_read_unlock_special()
again -- but this time, since irqs are disabled, it will call
invoke_rcu_core() in the RT tree (regardless of PREEMPT_RT_FULL), which
calls wake_up_process(). This can cause a pi/rq lock deadlock. An
example of interrupt code that does this is scheduler_tick().
The above sequence can be found in (at least) __lock_task_sighand() (for
!PREEMPT_RT_FULL) and d_alloc_parallel().
It's potentially an issue on non-RT as well. While
raise_softirq_irqoff() doesn't call wake_up_process() when in_interrupt()
is true, if code between steps 4 and 5 directly calls into scheduler
code, and that code uses RCU with pi/rq lock held, wake_up_process() can
still be called.
On RT, migrate_enable() is such a codepath, so an in_interrupt() check
alone would not work on RT. Instead, keep track of whether we've already
had an rcu_read_unlock_special() with preemption disabled but haven't yet
scheduled, and rely on the preempt_enable() yet to come instead of
calling invoke_rcu_core().
Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>
---
kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 10 ++--------
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
index 5d63914b3687..d7ddbcc7231c 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
@@ -630,14 +630,8 @@ static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
if (preempt_bh_were_disabled || irqs_were_disabled) {
WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, false);
/* Need to defer quiescent state until everything is enabled. */
- if (irqs_were_disabled) {
- /* Enabling irqs does not reschedule, so... */
- invoke_rcu_core();
- } else {
- /* Enabling BH or preempt does reschedule, so... */
- set_tsk_need_resched(current);
- set_preempt_need_resched();
- }
+ set_tsk_need_resched(current);
+ set_preempt_need_resched();
local_irq_restore(flags);
return;
}
--
1.8.3.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-19 1:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-19 1:19 [PATCH RT 0/4] Address rcutorture issues Scott Wood
2019-06-19 1:19 ` [PATCH RT 1/4] rcu: Acquire RCU lock when disabling BHs Scott Wood
2019-06-20 20:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-20 21:06 ` Scott Wood
2019-06-20 21:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-20 21:38 ` Scott Wood
2019-06-20 22:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-19 1:19 ` [PATCH RT 2/4] sched: migrate_enable: Use sleeping_lock to indicate involuntary sleep Scott Wood
2019-06-19 1:19 ` Scott Wood [this message]
2019-06-20 21:10 ` [RFC PATCH RT 3/4] rcu: unlock special: Treat irq and preempt disabled the same Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-20 21:59 ` Scott Wood
2019-06-20 22:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-20 23:08 ` Scott Wood
2019-06-22 0:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-22 19:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-24 17:40 ` Scott Wood
2019-06-19 1:19 ` [RFC PATCH RT 4/4] rcutorture: Avoid problematic critical section nesting Scott Wood
2019-06-20 21:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-20 21:43 ` Scott Wood
2019-06-21 16:38 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-06-21 23:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-26 15:08 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-06-26 16:49 ` Scott Wood
2019-06-27 18:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-27 20:16 ` Scott Wood
2019-06-27 20:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-27 22:46 ` Scott Wood
2019-06-28 0:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-28 19:37 ` Scott Wood
2019-06-28 20:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-20 19:12 ` [PATCH RT 0/4] Address rcutorture issues Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190619011908.25026-4-swood@redhat.com \
--to=swood@redhat.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=williams@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).