From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753057AbdHBRMf (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 2 Aug 2017 13:12:35 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:40427 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752827AbdHBRMd (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 2 Aug 2017 13:12:33 -0400
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 19:12:23 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Krister Johansen <kjlx@templeofstupid.com>,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/sched/core] swait: Remove the lockless swait_active()
 check in swake_up*()
Message-ID: <20170802171223.7sfh4f5rbuplu4th@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20170730134737.8374-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
 <20170802160713.GA1352@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170802160713.GA1352@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 09:07:13AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 09:47:35PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > Steven Rostedt reported a potential race in RCU core because of
> > swake_up():
> > 
> >         CPU0                            CPU1
> >         ----                            ----
> >                                 __call_rcu_core() {
> > 
> >                                  spin_lock(rnp_root)
> >                                  need_wake = __rcu_start_gp() {
> >                                   rcu_start_gp_advanced() {
> >                                    gp_flags = FLAG_INIT
> >                                   }
> >                                  }
> > 
> >  rcu_gp_kthread() {
> >    swait_event_interruptible(wq,
> >         gp_flags & FLAG_INIT) {
> >    spin_lock(q->lock)
> > 
> >                                 *fetch wq->task_list here! *
> > 
> >    list_add(wq->task_list, q->task_list)
> >    spin_unlock(q->lock);
> > 
> >    *fetch old value of gp_flags here *
> > 
> >                                  spin_unlock(rnp_root)
> > 
> >                                  rcu_gp_kthread_wake() {
> >                                   swake_up(wq) {
> >                                    swait_active(wq) {
> >                                     list_empty(wq->task_list)
> > 
> >                                    } * return false *
> > 
> >   if (condition) * false *
> >     schedule();
> > 
> > In this case, a wakeup is missed, which could cause the rcu_gp_kthread
> > waits for a long time.
> > 
> > The reason of this is that we do a lockless swait_active() check in
> > swake_up(). To fix this, we can either 1) add a smp_mb() in swake_up()
> > before swait_active() to provide the proper order or 2) simply remove
> > the swait_active() in swake_up().
> > 
> > The solution 2 not only fixes this problem but also keeps the swait and
> > wait API as close as possible, as wake_up() doesn't provide a full
> > barrier and doesn't do a lockless check of the wait queue either.
> > Moreover, there are users already using swait_active() to do their quick
> > checks for the wait queues, so it make less sense that swake_up() and
> > swake_up_all() do this on their own.
> > 
> > This patch then removes the lockless swait_active() check in swake_up()
> > and swake_up_all().
> > 
> > Reported-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> > Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> Hearing no objections but not hearing anything else, either, I have
> queued this for v4.14.  If someone else would rather queue it, please
> let me know.

I have it too. Lets see who can get it into -tip first :-)