linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To: Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	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
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 1/4] rcu: Acquire RCU lock when disabling BHs
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 13:53:52 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190620205352.GV26519@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190619011908.25026-2-swood@redhat.com>

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 08:19:05PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> A plain local_bh_disable() is documented as creating an RCU critical
> section, and (at least) rcutorture expects this to be the case.  However,
> in_softirq() doesn't block a grace period on PREEMPT_RT, since RCU checks
> preempt_count() directly.  Even if RCU were changed to check
> in_softirq(), that wouldn't allow blocked BH disablers to be boosted.
> 
> Fix this by calling rcu_read_lock() from local_bh_disable(), and update
> rcu_read_lock_bh_held() accordingly.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/rcupdate.h |  4 ++++
>  kernel/rcu/update.c      |  4 ++++
>  kernel/softirq.c         | 12 +++++++++---
>  3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> index fb267bc04fdf..aca4e5e25ace 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> @@ -637,10 +637,12 @@ static inline void rcu_read_unlock(void)
>  static inline void rcu_read_lock_bh(void)
>  {
>  	local_bh_disable();
> +#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL

How about this instead?

	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL))
		return;

And similarly below.

>  	__acquire(RCU_BH);
>  	rcu_lock_acquire(&rcu_bh_lock_map);
>  	RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_is_watching(),
>  			 "rcu_read_lock_bh() used illegally while idle");
> +#endif
>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -650,10 +652,12 @@ static inline void rcu_read_lock_bh(void)
>   */
>  static inline void rcu_read_unlock_bh(void)
>  {
> +#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL
>  	RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_is_watching(),
>  			 "rcu_read_unlock_bh() used illegally while idle");
>  	rcu_lock_release(&rcu_bh_lock_map);
>  	__release(RCU_BH);
> +#endif
>  	local_bh_enable();
>  }
>  
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> index 3700b730ea55..eb653a329e0b 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> @@ -307,7 +307,11 @@ int rcu_read_lock_bh_held(void)
>  		return 0;
>  	if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online())
>  		return 0;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL
> +	return lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) || irqs_disabled();
> +#else
>  	return in_softirq() || irqs_disabled();
> +#endif
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_bh_held);
>  
> diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c
> index 473369122ddd..eb46dd3ff92d 100644
> --- a/kernel/softirq.c
> +++ b/kernel/softirq.c
> @@ -121,8 +121,10 @@ void __local_bh_disable_ip(unsigned long ip, unsigned int cnt)
>  	long soft_cnt;
>  
>  	WARN_ON_ONCE(in_irq());
> -	if (!in_atomic())
> +	if (!in_atomic()) {
>  		local_lock(bh_lock);
> +		rcu_read_lock();
> +	}
>  	soft_cnt = this_cpu_inc_return(softirq_counter);
>  	WARN_ON_ONCE(soft_cnt == 0);
>  
> @@ -155,8 +157,10 @@ void _local_bh_enable(void)
>  	local_irq_restore(flags);
>  #endif
>  
> -	if (!in_atomic())
> +	if (!in_atomic()) {
> +		rcu_read_unlock();
>  		local_unlock(bh_lock);
> +	}
>  }
>  
>  void _local_bh_enable_rt(void)
> @@ -189,8 +193,10 @@ void __local_bh_enable_ip(unsigned long ip, unsigned int cnt)
>  	WARN_ON_ONCE(count < 0);
>  	local_irq_enable();
>  
> -	if (!in_atomic())
> +	if (!in_atomic()) {
> +		rcu_read_unlock();
>  		local_unlock(bh_lock);
> +	}
>  
>  	preempt_check_resched();
>  }

And I have to ask...

What did you do to test this change to kernel/softirq.c?  My past attempts
to do this sort of thing have always run afoul of open-coded BH transitions.

							Thanx, Paul

  reply	other threads:[~2019-06-20 20:54 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 [this message]
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 ` [RFC PATCH RT 3/4] rcu: unlock special: Treat irq and preempt disabled the same Scott Wood
2019-06-20 21:10   ` 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=20190620205352.GV26519@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=swood@redhat.com \
    --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).