Re: [patch V2 08/15] Documentation: Add lock ordering and nesting documentation

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>,
	Kurt Schwemmer <kurt.schwemmer@microsemi.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [patch V2 08/15] Documentation: Add lock ordering and nesting documentation
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:02:43 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200320210243.GT3199@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87mu8apzxr.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 08:51:44PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> writes:
> >
> >  - The soft interrupt related suffix (_bh()) still disables softirq
> >    handlers.  However, unlike non-PREEMPT_RT kernels (which disable
> >    preemption to get this effect), PREEMPT_RT kernels use a per-CPU
> >    lock to exclude softirq handlers.
> 
> I've made that:
> 
>   - The soft interrupt related suffix (_bh()) still disables softirq
>     handlers.
> 
>     Non-PREEMPT_RT kernels disable preemption to get this effect.
> 
>     PREEMPT_RT kernels use a per-CPU lock for serialization. The lock
>     disables softirq handlers and prevents reentrancy by a preempting
>     task.

That works!  At the end, I would instead say "prevents reentrancy
due to task preemption", but what you have works.

> On non-RT this is implicit through preemption disable, but it's non
> obvious for RT as preemption stays enabled.
> 
> > PREEMPT_RT kernels preserve all other spinlock_t semantics:
> >
> >  - Tasks holding a spinlock_t do not migrate.  Non-PREEMPT_RT kernels
> >    avoid migration by disabling preemption.  PREEMPT_RT kernels instead
> >    disable migration, which ensures that pointers to per-CPU variables
> >    remain valid even if the task is preempted.
> >
> >  - Task state is preserved across spinlock acquisition, ensuring that the
> >    task-state rules apply to all kernel configurations.  In non-PREEMPT_RT
> >    kernels leave task state untouched.  However, PREEMPT_RT must change
> >    task state if the task blocks during acquisition.  Therefore, the
> >    corresponding lock wakeup restores the task state.  Note that regular
> >    (not lock related) wakeups do not restore task state.
> 
>    - Task state is preserved across spinlock acquisition, ensuring that the
>      task-state rules apply to all kernel configurations.  Non-PREEMPT_RT
>      kernels leave task state untouched.  However, PREEMPT_RT must change
>      task state if the task blocks during acquisition.  Therefore, it
>      saves the current task state before blocking and the corresponding
>      lock wakeup restores it. A regular not lock related wakeup sets the
>      task state to RUNNING. If this happens while the task is blocked on
>      a spinlock then the saved task state is changed so that correct
>      state is restored on lock wakeup.
> 
> Hmm?

I of course cannot resist editing the last two sentences:

   ... Other types of wakeups unconditionally set task state to RUNNING.
   If this happens while a task is blocked while acquiring a spinlock,
   then the task state is restored to its pre-acquisition value at
   lock-wakeup time.

> > But this code failes on PREEMPT_RT kernels because the memory allocator
> > is fully preemptible and therefore cannot be invoked from truly atomic
> > contexts.  However, it is perfectly fine to invoke the memory allocator
> > while holding a normal non-raw spinlocks because they do not disable
> > preemption::
> >
> >> +  spin_lock(&lock);
> >> +  p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), GFP_ATOMIC);
> >> +
> >> +Most places which use GFP_ATOMIC allocations are safe on PREEMPT_RT as the
> >> +execution is forced into thread context and the lock substitution is
> >> +ensuring preemptibility.
> >
> > Interestingly enough, most uses of GFP_ATOMIC allocations are
> > actually safe on PREEMPT_RT because the the lock substitution ensures
> > preemptibility.  Only those GFP_ATOMIC allocations that are invoke
> > while holding a raw spinlock or with preemption otherwise disabled need
> > adjustment to work correctly on PREEMPT_RT.
> >
> > [ I am not as confident of the above as I would like to be... ]
> 
> I'd leave that whole paragraph out. This documents the rules and from
> the above code examples it's pretty clear what works and what not :)

Works for me!  ;-)

> > And meeting time, will continue later!
> 
> Enjoy!

Not bad, actually, as meetings go.

							Thanx, Paul