Re: [PATCH 2/9] rcu: Add support for consolidated-RCU reader checking (v3)

From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	c0d1n61at3@gmail.com, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	edumazet@google.com,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
	keescook@chromium.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
	kernel-team@android.com, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
	neilb@suse.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	peterz@infradead.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk>,
	rcu@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	will@kernel.org,
	"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
	<x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] rcu: Add support for consolidated-RCU reader checking (v3)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 14:46:49 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190716184649.GA130463@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190716183833.GD14271@linux.ibm.com>

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:38:33AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:36:58AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > This patch adds support for checking RCU reader sections in list
> > traversal macros. Optionally, if the list macro is called under SRCU or
> > other lock/mutex protection, then appropriate lockdep expressions can be
> > passed to make the checks pass.
> > 
> > Existing list_for_each_entry_rcu() invocations don't need to pass the
> > optional fourth argument (cond) unless they are under some non-RCU
> > protection and needs to make lockdep check pass.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> 
> Now that I am on the correct version, again please fold in the checks
> for the extra argument.  The ability to have an optional argument looks
> quite helpful, especially when compared to growing the RCU API!

I did fold this and replied with a pull request URL based on /dev branch. But
we can hold off on the pull requests until we decide on the below comments:

> A few more things below.
> > ---
> >  include/linux/rculist.h  | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >  include/linux/rcupdate.h |  7 +++++++
> >  kernel/rcu/Kconfig.debug | 11 ++++++++++
> >  kernel/rcu/update.c      | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> >  4 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/rculist.h b/include/linux/rculist.h
> > index e91ec9ddcd30..1048160625bb 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/rculist.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/rculist.h
> > @@ -40,6 +40,20 @@ static inline void INIT_LIST_HEAD_RCU(struct list_head *list)
> >   */
> >  #define list_next_rcu(list)	(*((struct list_head __rcu **)(&(list)->next)))
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * Check during list traversal that we are within an RCU reader
> > + */
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_LIST
> 
> This new Kconfig option is OK temporarily, but unless there is reason to
> fear malfunction that a few weeks of rcutorture, 0day, and -next won't
> find, it would be better to just use CONFIG_PROVE_RCU.  The overall goal
> is to reduce the number of RCU knobs rather than grow them, must though
> history might lead one to believe otherwise.  :-/

If you want, we can try to drop this option and just use PROVE_RCU however I
must say there may be several warnings that need to be fixed in a short
period of time (even a few weeks may be too short) considering the 1000+
uses of RCU lists.

But I don't mind dropping it and it may just accelerate the fixing up of all
callers.

> > +#define __list_check_rcu(dummy, cond, ...)				\
> > +	({								\
> > +	RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(),		\
> > +			 "RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!");	\
> > +	 })
> > +#else
> > +#define __list_check_rcu(dummy, cond, ...) ({})
> > +#endif
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * Insert a new entry between two known consecutive entries.
> >   *
> > @@ -343,14 +357,16 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init_rcu(struct list_head *list,
> >   * @pos:	the type * to use as a loop cursor.
> >   * @head:	the head for your list.
> >   * @member:	the name of the list_head within the struct.
> > + * @cond:	optional lockdep expression if called from non-RCU protection.
> >   *
> >   * This list-traversal primitive may safely run concurrently with
> >   * the _rcu list-mutation primitives such as list_add_rcu()
> >   * as long as the traversal is guarded by rcu_read_lock().
> >   */
> > -#define list_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, head, member) \
> > -	for (pos = list_entry_rcu((head)->next, typeof(*pos), member); \
> > -		&pos->member != (head); \
> > +#define list_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, head, member, cond...)		\
> > +	for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0),			\
> > +	     pos = list_entry_rcu((head)->next, typeof(*pos), member);	\
> > +		&pos->member != (head);					\
> >  		pos = list_entry_rcu(pos->member.next, typeof(*pos), member))
> >  
> >  /**
> > @@ -616,13 +632,15 @@ static inline void hlist_add_behind_rcu(struct hlist_node *n,
> >   * @pos:	the type * to use as a loop cursor.
> >   * @head:	the head for your list.
> >   * @member:	the name of the hlist_node within the struct.
> > + * @cond:	optional lockdep expression if called from non-RCU protection.
> >   *
> >   * This list-traversal primitive may safely run concurrently with
> >   * the _rcu list-mutation primitives such as hlist_add_head_rcu()
> >   * as long as the traversal is guarded by rcu_read_lock().
> >   */
> > -#define hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, head, member)			\
> > -	for (pos = hlist_entry_safe (rcu_dereference_raw(hlist_first_rcu(head)),\
> > +#define hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, head, member, cond...)		\
> > +	for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0),			\
> > +	     pos = hlist_entry_safe (rcu_dereference_raw(hlist_first_rcu(head)),\
> >  			typeof(*(pos)), member);			\
> >  		pos;							\
> >  		pos = hlist_entry_safe(rcu_dereference_raw(hlist_next_rcu(\
> > diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > index 8f7167478c1d..f3c29efdf19a 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > @@ -221,6 +221,7 @@ int debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled(void);
> >  int rcu_read_lock_held(void);
> >  int rcu_read_lock_bh_held(void);
> >  int rcu_read_lock_sched_held(void);
> > +int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void);
> >  
> >  #else /* #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC */
> >  
> > @@ -241,6 +242,12 @@ static inline int rcu_read_lock_sched_held(void)
> >  {
> >  	return !preemptible();
> >  }
> > +
> > +static inline int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void)
> > +{
> > +	return !preemptible();
> > +}
> > +
> >  #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC */
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/Kconfig.debug b/kernel/rcu/Kconfig.debug
> > index 5ec3ea4028e2..7fbd21dbfcd0 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/Kconfig.debug
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/Kconfig.debug
> > @@ -8,6 +8,17 @@ menu "RCU Debugging"
> >  config PROVE_RCU
> >  	def_bool PROVE_LOCKING
> >  
> > +config PROVE_RCU_LIST
> > +	bool "RCU list lockdep debugging"
> > +	depends on PROVE_RCU
> 
> This must also depend on RCU_EXPERT.  

Sure.

> > +	default n
> > +	help
> > +	  Enable RCU lockdep checking for list usages. By default it is
> > +	  turned off since there are several list RCU users that still
> > +	  need to be converted to pass a lockdep expression. To prevent
> > +	  false-positive splats, we keep it default disabled but once all
> > +	  users are converted, we can remove this config option.
> > +
> >  config TORTURE_TEST
> >  	tristate
> >  	default n
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > index 9dd5aeef6e70..b7a4e3b5fa98 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > @@ -91,14 +91,18 @@ module_param(rcu_normal_after_boot, int, 0);
> >   * Similarly, we avoid claiming an SRCU read lock held if the current
> >   * CPU is offline.
> >   */
> > +#define rcu_read_lock_held_common()		\
> > +	if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled())	\
> > +		return 1;			\
> > +	if (!rcu_is_watching())			\
> > +		return 0;			\
> > +	if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online())	\
> > +		return 0;
> 
> Nice abstraction of common code!

Thanks!