Linux-ACPI Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	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>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
	keescook@chromium.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
	linux-acpi@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@redhat.com,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	"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 v1 1/6] rcu: Add support for consolidated-RCU reader checking
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 15:40:40 -0400
Message-ID: <20190712194040.GA150253@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190712174630.GX26519@linux.ibm.com>

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:46:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:06:31PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 09:45:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:10:51AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:11:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:43:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > > > > +int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +	int lockdep_opinion = 0;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +	if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled())
> > > > > > +		return 1;
> > > > > > +	if (!rcu_is_watching())
> > > > > > +		return 0;
> > > > > > +	if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online())
> > > > > > +		return 0;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +	/* Preemptible RCU flavor */
> > > > > > +	if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map))
> > > > > 
> > > > > you forgot debug_locks here.
> > > > 
> > > > Actually, it turns out debug_locks checking is not even needed. If
> > > > debug_locks == 0, then debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() returns 0 and we would not
> > > > get to this point.
> > > > 
> > > > > > +		return 1;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +	/* BH flavor */
> > > > > > +	if (in_softirq() || irqs_disabled())
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm not sure I'd put irqs_disabled() under BH, also this entire
> > > > > condition is superfluous, see below.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > +		return 1;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +	/* Sched flavor */
> > > > > > +	if (debug_locks)
> > > > > > +		lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map);
> > > > > > +	return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible();
> > > > > 
> > > > > that !preemptible() turns into:
> > > > > 
> > > > >   !(preempt_count()==0 && !irqs_disabled())
> > > > > 
> > > > > which is:
> > > > > 
> > > > >   preempt_count() != 0 || irqs_disabled()
> > > > > 
> > > > > and already includes irqs_disabled() and in_softirq().
> > > > > 
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > 
> > > > > So maybe something lke:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	if (debug_locks && (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) ||
> > > > > 			    lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map)))
> > > > > 		return true;
> > > > 
> > > > Agreed, I will do it this way (without the debug_locks) like:
> > > > 
> > > > ---8<-----------------------
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > > > index ba861d1716d3..339aebc330db 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > > > @@ -296,27 +296,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_bh_held);
> > > >  
> > > >  int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void)
> > > >  {
> > > > -	int lockdep_opinion = 0;
> > > > -
> > > >  	if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled())
> > > >  		return 1;
> > > >  	if (!rcu_is_watching())
> > > >  		return 0;
> > > >  	if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online())
> > > >  		return 0;
> > > > -
> > > > -	/* Preemptible RCU flavor */
> > > > -	if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map))
> > > > -		return 1;
> > > > -
> > > > -	/* BH flavor */
> > > > -	if (in_softirq() || irqs_disabled())
> > > > -		return 1;
> > > > -
> > > > -	/* Sched flavor */
> > > > -	if (debug_locks)
> > > > -		lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map);
> > > > -	return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible();
> > > > +	if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) || lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map))
> > > 
> > > OK, I will bite...  Why not also lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map)?
> > 
> > Hmm, I was borrowing the strategy from rcu_read_lock_bh_held() which does not
> > check for a lock held in this map.
> > 
> > Honestly, even  lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map) seems unnecessary per-se
> > since !preemptible() will catch that? rcu_read_lock_sched() disables
> > preemption already, so lockdep's opinion of the matter seems redundant there.
> 
> Good point!  At least as long as the lockdep splats list RCU-bh among
> the locks held, which they did last I checked.
> 
> Of course, you could make the same argument for getting rid of
> rcu_sched_lock_map.  Does it make sense to have the one without
> the other?

It probably makes it inconsistent in the least. I will add the check for
the rcu_bh_lock_map in a separate patch, if that's Ok with you - since I also
want to update the rcu_read_lock_bh_held() logic in the same patch.

That rcu_read_lock_bh_held() could also just return !preemptible as Peter
suggested for the bh case.

> > Sorry I already sent out patches again before seeing your comment but I can
> > rework and resend them based on any other suggestions.
> 
> Not a problem!

Thanks. Depending on whether there is any other feedback, I will work on the
bh_ stuff as a separate patch on top of this series, or work it into the next
series revision if I'm reposting. Hopefully that sounds Ok to you.

thanks,

 - Joel



  reply index

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-11 23:43 [PATCH v1 0/6] Harden list_for_each_entry_rcu() and family Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-07-11 23:43 ` [PATCH v1 1/6] rcu: Add support for consolidated-RCU reader checking Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-07-12  4:49   ` Joel Fernandes
2019-07-12 11:01   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-12 14:49     ` Joel Fernandes
2019-07-12 11:11   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-12 15:10     ` Joel Fernandes
2019-07-12 15:58       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-12 16:45       ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-12 17:06         ` Joel Fernandes
2019-07-12 17:46           ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-12 19:40             ` Joel Fernandes [this message]
2019-07-12 23:27               ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-12 12:12   ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-07-12 13:56     ` Joel Fernandes
2019-07-11 23:43 ` [PATCH v1 2/6] ipv4: add lockdep condition to fix for_each_entry Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-07-11 23:43 ` [PATCH v1 3/6] driver/core: Convert to use built-in RCU list checking Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-07-12  5:19   ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-07-11 23:43 ` [PATCH v1 4/6] workqueue: Convert for_each_wq to use built-in list check Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-07-11 23:44 ` [PATCH v1 5/6] x86/pci: Pass lockdep condition to pcm_mmcfg_list iterator Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-07-11 23:44 ` [PATCH v1 6/6] acpi: Use built-in RCU list checking for acpi_ioremaps list Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-07-11 23:52 ` [PATCH v1 0/6] Harden list_for_each_entry_rcu() and family Joel Fernandes

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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=20190712194040.GA150253@google.com \
    --to=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=c0d1n61at3@gmail.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=neilb@suse.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk \
    --cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org \
    /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

Linux-ACPI Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/0 linux-acpi/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-acpi linux-acpi/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi \
		linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org linux-acpi@archiver.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-acpi


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-acpi


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox