From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT v2 1/3] rcu: Acquire RCU lock when disabling BHs
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 09:39:55 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190822133955.GA29841@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190821233358.GU28441@linux.ibm.com>
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 04:33:58PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 06:19:04PM -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.
>
> Cool! Some questions and comments below.
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > Another question is whether non-raw spinlocks are intended to create an
> > RCU read-side critical section due to implicit preempt disable.
>
> Hmmm... Did non-raw spinlocks act like rcu_read_lock_sched()
> and rcu_read_unlock_sched() pairs in -rt prior to the RCU flavor
> consolidation? If not, I don't see why they should do so after that
> consolidation in -rt.
May be I am missing something, but I didn't see the connection between
consolidation and this patch. AFAICS, this patch is so that
rcu_read_lock_bh_held() works at all on -rt. Did I badly miss something?
> > If they
> > are, then we'd need to add rcu_read_lock() there as well since RT doesn't
> > disable preemption (and rcutorture should explicitly test with a
> > spinlock). If not, the documentation should make that clear.
>
> True enough!
>
> > 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 388ace315f32..d6e357378732 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > @@ -615,10 +615,12 @@ static inline void rcu_read_unlock(void)
> > static inline void rcu_read_lock_bh(void)
> > {
> > local_bh_disable();
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL
> > __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
>
> Any chance of this using "if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL))"?
> We should be OK providing a do-nothing __maybe_unused rcu_bh_lock_map
> for lockdep-enabled -rt kernels, right?
Since this function is small, I prefer if -rt defines their own
rcu_read_lock_bh() which just does the local_bh_disable(). That would be way
cleaner IMO. IIRC, -rt does similar things for spinlocks, but it has been
sometime since I look at the -rt patchset.
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -628,10 +630,12 @@ 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
>
> Ditto.
>
> > local_bh_enable();
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > index 016c66a98292..a9cdf3d562bc 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > @@ -296,7 +296,11 @@ 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
>
> And globally.
And could be untangled a bit as well:
if (irqs_disabled())
return 1;
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL))
return lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map);
return in_softirq();
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_bh_held);
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c
> > index d16d080a74f7..6080c9328df1 100644
> > --- a/kernel/softirq.c
> > +++ b/kernel/softirq.c
> > @@ -115,8 +115,10 @@ 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);
> > current->softirq_count += SOFTIRQ_DISABLE_OFFSET;
> > @@ -151,8 +153,10 @@ void _local_bh_enable(void)
> > #endif
> >
> > current->softirq_count -= SOFTIRQ_DISABLE_OFFSET;
> > - if (!in_atomic())
> > + if (!in_atomic()) {
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > local_unlock(bh_lock);
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > void _local_bh_enable_rt(void)
> > @@ -185,8 +189,10 @@ 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);
> > + }
>
> The return from in_atomic() is guaranteed to be the same at
> local_bh_enable() time as was at the call to the corresponding
> local_bh_disable()?
>
> I could have sworn that I ran afoul of this last year. Might these
> added rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() calls need to check for
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL?
Great point! I think they should be guarded but will let Scott answer that
one.
thanks,
- Joel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-22 13:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-21 23:19 [PATCH RT v2 0/3] RCU fixes Scott Wood
2019-08-21 23:19 ` [PATCH RT v2 1/3] rcu: Acquire RCU lock when disabling BHs Scott Wood
2019-08-21 23:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-22 13:39 ` Joel Fernandes [this message]
2019-08-22 15:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-23 1:50 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-23 2:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-23 3:23 ` Scott Wood
2019-08-23 12:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-23 16:17 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-08-23 19:46 ` Scott Wood
2019-08-26 15:59 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-08-26 23:21 ` Scott Wood
2019-08-23 2:36 ` Scott Wood
2019-08-23 2:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-21 23:19 ` [PATCH RT v2 2/3] sched: migrate_enable: Use sleeping_lock to indicate involuntary sleep Scott Wood
2019-08-21 23:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-23 1:21 ` Scott Wood
2019-08-23 16:20 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-08-23 19:28 ` Scott Wood
2019-08-24 3:10 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-26 15:25 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-08-26 16:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-26 17:49 ` Scott Wood
2019-08-26 18:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-27 9:23 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-08-27 13:08 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-27 15:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-27 16:06 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-27 15:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-28 9:27 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-08-28 12:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-28 13:14 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-08-28 13:59 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-28 15:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-28 15:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-21 23:19 ` [PATCH RT v2 3/3] rcu: Disable use_softirq on PREEMPT_RT Scott Wood
2019-08-21 23:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-23 16:32 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-08-22 13:59 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-22 15:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-22 19:31 ` Scott Wood
2019-08-23 0:52 ` Joel Fernandes
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=20190822133955.GA29841@google.com \
--to=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--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=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).