All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: safety of *mutex_unlock() (Was: [BUG] signal: sighand unprotected when accessed by /proc)
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:57:55 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140617185755.GA8600@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140615054058.GJ4581@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:40:58PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 05:08:30PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 06/12, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > @@ -398,11 +399,9 @@ void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
> > >  		if (&t->rcu_node_entry == rnp->boost_tasks)
> > >  			rnp->boost_tasks = np;
> > > -		/* Snapshot/clear ->rcu_boost_mutex with rcu_node lock held. */
> > > -		if (t->rcu_boost_mutex) {
> > > -			rbmp = t->rcu_boost_mutex;
> > > -			t->rcu_boost_mutex = NULL;
> > > -		}
> > > +		/* Snapshot/clear ->boost_mutex with rcu_node lock held. */
> > > +		if (rt_mutex_owner(&rnp->boost_mtx) == t)
> > > +			rbmp = &rnp->boost_mtx;
> > 
> > The comment above looks confusing after this change ;) We do not clear it,
> > and it doesn't explain "with rcu_node lock held".
> > 
> > And, with or without this change it is not obvious why do we need "rbmp",
> > after this patch this becomes even more unobvious.
> > 
> > This is subjective of course, but perhaps it would be more understandable
> > to do
> > 
> > 	bool xxx;
> > 
> > 	...
> > 
> > 	// Check this under rcu_node lock to ensure that unlock below
> > 	// can't race with rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked() in progress.
> > 	xxx = rt_mutex_owner(&rnp->boost_mtx) == t;
> > 
> > 	...
> > 
> > 	// rnp->lock was dropped
> > 	if (xxx)
> > 		rt_mutex_unlock(&rnp->boost_mtx);
> > 
> > 
> > But this is very minor, I won't insist of course. Mostly I am just trying
> > to check my understanding.
> 
> No, this is good, and I will update accordingly.

I suppose I could have included the patch...

							Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

rcu: Simplify priority boosting by putting rt_mutex in rcu_node

RCU priority boosting currently checks for boosting via a pointer in
task_struct.  However, this is not needed: As Oleg noted, if the
rt_mutex is placed in the rcu_node instead of on the booster's stack,
the boostee can simply check it see if it owns the lock.  This commit
makes this change, shrinking task_struct by one pointer and the kernel
by thirteen lines.

Suggested-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

diff --git a/include/linux/init_task.h b/include/linux/init_task.h
index 6df7f9fe0d01..2bb4c4f3531a 100644
--- a/include/linux/init_task.h
+++ b/include/linux/init_task.h
@@ -102,12 +102,6 @@ extern struct group_info init_groups;
 #define INIT_IDS
 #endif
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
-#define INIT_TASK_RCU_BOOST()						\
-	.rcu_boost_mutex = NULL,
-#else
-#define INIT_TASK_RCU_BOOST()
-#endif
 #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU
 #define INIT_TASK_RCU_TREE_PREEMPT()					\
 	.rcu_blocked_node = NULL,
@@ -119,8 +113,7 @@ extern struct group_info init_groups;
 	.rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0,					\
 	.rcu_read_unlock_special = 0,					\
 	.rcu_node_entry = LIST_HEAD_INIT(tsk.rcu_node_entry),		\
-	INIT_TASK_RCU_TREE_PREEMPT()					\
-	INIT_TASK_RCU_BOOST()
+	INIT_TASK_RCU_TREE_PREEMPT()
 #else
 #define INIT_TASK_RCU_PREEMPT(tsk)
 #endif
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 306f4f0c987a..3cfbc05e66e6 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -1270,9 +1270,6 @@ struct task_struct {
 #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU
 	struct rcu_node *rcu_blocked_node;
 #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU */
-#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
-	struct rt_mutex *rcu_boost_mutex;
-#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
 
 #if defined(CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS) || defined(CONFIG_TASK_DELAY_ACCT)
 	struct sched_info sched_info;
@@ -2009,9 +2006,6 @@ static inline void rcu_copy_process(struct task_struct *p)
 #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU
 	p->rcu_blocked_node = NULL;
 #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU */
-#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
-	p->rcu_boost_mutex = NULL;
-#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->rcu_node_entry);
 }
 
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
index 31194ee9dfa6..db3f096ed80b 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
@@ -177,6 +177,9 @@ struct rcu_node {
 				/*  to carry out the boosting is fully */
 				/*  released with no future boostee accesses */
 				/*  before that rt_mutex is re-initialized. */
+	struct rt_mutex boost_mtx;
+				/* Used only for the priority-boosting */
+				/*  side effect, not as a lock. */
 	unsigned long boost_time;
 				/* When to start boosting (jiffies). */
 	struct task_struct *boost_kthread_task;
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
index dc98cacfef21..d8ae20f5ca87 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
 #include <linux/oom.h>
 #include <linux/smpboot.h>
 #include "../time/tick-internal.h"
+#include "../locking/rtmutex_common.h"
 
 #define RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO 1
 
@@ -336,7 +337,7 @@ void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
 	unsigned long flags;
 	struct list_head *np;
 #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
-	struct rt_mutex *rbmp = NULL;
+	bool drop_boost_mutex = false;
 #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
 	struct rcu_node *rnp;
 	int special;
@@ -398,11 +399,8 @@ void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
 #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
 		if (&t->rcu_node_entry == rnp->boost_tasks)
 			rnp->boost_tasks = np;
-		/* Snapshot/clear ->rcu_boost_mutex with rcu_node lock held. */
-		if (t->rcu_boost_mutex) {
-			rbmp = t->rcu_boost_mutex;
-			t->rcu_boost_mutex = NULL;
-		}
+		/* Snapshot ->boost_mtx ownership with rcu_node lock held. */
+		drop_boost_mutex = rt_mutex_owner(&rnp->boost_mtx) == t;
 #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
 
 		/*
@@ -427,8 +425,8 @@ void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
 		/* Unboost if we were boosted. */
-		if (rbmp) {
-			rt_mutex_unlock(rbmp);
+		if (drop_boost_mutex) {
+			rt_mutex_unlock(&rnp->boost_mtx);
 			complete(&rnp->boost_completion);
 		}
 #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
@@ -1151,7 +1149,6 @@ static void rcu_wake_cond(struct task_struct *t, int status)
 static int rcu_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp)
 {
 	unsigned long flags;
-	struct rt_mutex mtx;
 	struct task_struct *t;
 	struct list_head *tb;
 
@@ -1202,14 +1199,14 @@ static int rcu_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp)
 	 * section.
 	 */
 	t = container_of(tb, struct task_struct, rcu_node_entry);
-	rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked(&mtx, t);
-	t->rcu_boost_mutex = &mtx;
+	rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked(&rnp->boost_mtx, t);
 	init_completion(&rnp->boost_completion);
 	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
-	rt_mutex_lock(&mtx);  /* Side effect: boosts task t's priority. */
-	rt_mutex_unlock(&mtx);  /* Keep lockdep happy. */
+	/* Lock only for side effect: boosts task t's priority. */
+	rt_mutex_lock(&rnp->boost_mtx);
+	rt_mutex_unlock(&rnp->boost_mtx);  /* Then keep lockdep happy. */
 
-	/* Wait until boostee is done accessing mtx before reinitializing. */
+	/* Wait for boostee to be done w/boost_mtx before reinitializing. */
 	wait_for_completion(&rnp->boost_completion);
 
 	return ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->exp_tasks) != NULL ||


  reply	other threads:[~2014-06-17 18:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-06-03 17:02 [BUG] signal: sighand unprotected when accessed by /proc Steven Rostedt
2014-06-03 17:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-03 18:03   ` Linus Torvalds
2014-06-03 20:01     ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-03 20:03       ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-06 20:33       ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-08 13:07         ` safety of *mutex_unlock() (Was: [BUG] signal: sighand unprotected when accessed by /proc) Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-09 16:26           ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-09 18:15             ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-09 18:29               ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-09 18:51                 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-06-09 19:41                   ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-10  8:53                     ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-10 16:57                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-10 18:08                         ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-10 18:13                           ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-10 20:05                             ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-10 20:13                               ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-11 15:52                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-11 17:07                                   ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-11 17:17                                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-11 17:29                                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-11 17:59                                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-11 19:56                                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-12 17:28                                             ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-12 20:35                                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-12 21:40                                                 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-12 22:27                                                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-12 23:19                                                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-13 15:08                                                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-15  5:40                                                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-17 18:57                                                           ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2014-06-18 16:43                                                             ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-18 16:53                                                               ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-21 19:54                                                                 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-18 17:00                                                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-13 14:55                                                   ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-13 16:10                                                     ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-13 16:19                                                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-13 14:52                                                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-11 17:27                                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-10 17:07                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-10 17:51                         ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-10 12:56                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-10 14:48                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-10 15:18                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-10 15:35                     ` Linus Torvalds
2014-06-10 16:15                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-09 19:04                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-10  8:37             ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-10 12:52               ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-10 13:01                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-10 14:36                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-10 15:20                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-03 20:05     ` [BUG] signal: sighand unprotected when accessed by /proc Steven Rostedt
2014-06-03 20:09       ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-03 20:15         ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-03 20:25         ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-03 21:12           ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-03 18:05   ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-03 19:25     ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-04  1:16       ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-04 16:31         ` Oleg Nesterov

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=20140617185755.GA8600@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.