Linux-rt-users archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT] locking: Make spinlock_t and rwlock_t a RCU section on RT
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 14:51:47 -0800
Message-ID: <20191129225147.GO2889@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191129154535.sla5s54xd7rfty2u@linutronix.de>

On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 04:45:35PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-11-25 12:25:45 [-0500], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 19:01:40 +0100
> > Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > Let me give you an example how I got into this:
> > > 
> > > do_sigaction() acquires p->sighand->siglock and then iterates over list
> > > via for_each_thread() which is a list_for_each_entry_rcu(). No RCU lock
> > > is held, just the siglock.
> > > On removal side, __unhash_process() removes a task from the list but
> > > while doing so it holds the siglock and tasklist_lock. So it is
> > > perfectly fine.
> > > Later, we have:
> > > |do_exit()
> > > | -> exit_notify()
> > > |   -> write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> > > |   -> forget_original_parent()
> > > |      -> find_child_reaper()
> > > |        -> find_alive_thread()
> > > |           -> for_each_thread()
> > > 
> > > find_alive_thread() does the for_each_thread() and checks PF_EXITING.
> > > it might be enough for not operating on "removed" task_struct. It
> > > dereferences task_struct->flags while looking for PF_EXITING. At this
> > > point only tasklist_lock is acquired.
> > > I have *no* idea if the whole synchronisation based on siglock/
> > > PF_EXITING/ tasklist_lock is enough and RCU simply doesn't matter. It
> > > seems so.
> > > 
> > > I am a little worried if this construct here (or somewhere else) assumes
> > > that holding one of those locks, which disable preemption, is the same
> > > as rcu_read_lock() (or rcu_read_lock_sched()).
> > 
> > I'm wondering if instead, we should start throwing in rcu_read_lock()
> > and explicitly have the preempt disabled rcu use that as well, since
> > today it's basically one and the same.
> 
> Any comment from the RCU camp on this?
> Maybe just adding the missing RCU annotation for the list annotation is
> enough (like if lock X or Y is held then everything fine). !RT gets this
> implicit via preempt_disable(). I'm just worried if someone expects
> this kind of behaviour.
> If I remember correctly, Scott added rcu_read_lock() recently to
> local_bh_disable() because RCU-torture expected it.

Adding an explicit rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() pair to the various
spinlock primitives for -rt seems quite sensible to me.  My guess is
that non-rt CONFIG_PREEMPT=y uses in mainline might not like the extra
overhead.

For the trylock primitives, would it make more sense to do the
rcu_read_lock() only after successful acquisition, or to do the
rcu_read_lock() to begin with and then do rcu_read_unlock() upon failure?
I would guess the latter, but don't feel strongly about it.

							Thanx, Paul

  reply index

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-11-19  8:46 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-11-19 14:21 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-11-19 14:46   ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-22 18:01   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-11-25 17:25     ` Steven Rostedt
2019-11-29 15:45       ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-11-29 22:51         ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2019-11-19 14:47 ` Paul E. McKenney

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=20191129225147.GO2889@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72 \
    --to=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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-rt-users archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rt-users/0 linux-rt-users/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-rt-users linux-rt-users/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rt-users \
		linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-rt-users

Example config snippet for mirrors

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


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