linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca,
	josh@joshtriplett.org, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
	peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com,
	eric.dumazet@gmail.com, darren@dvhart.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
	sbw@mit.edu, patches@linaro.org,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 17/23] rcu: Fix day-zero grace-period initialization/cleanup race
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:18:32 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1346350718-30937-17-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1346350718-30937-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

The current approach to grace-period initialization is vulnerable to
extremely low-probabity races.  These races stem fro the fact that the
old grace period is marked completed on the same traversal through the
rcu_node structure that is marking the start of the new grace period.
These races can result in too-short grace periods, as shown in the
following scenario:

1.	CPU 0 completes a grace period, but needs an additional
	grace period, so starts initializing one, initializing all
	the non-leaf rcu_node strcutures and the first leaf rcu_node
	structure.  Because CPU 0 is both completing the old grace
	period and starting a new one, it marks the completion of
	the old grace period and the start of the new grace period
	in a single traversal of the rcu_node structures.

	Therefore, CPUs corresponding to the first rcu_node structure
	can become aware that the prior grace period has completed, but
	CPUs corresponding to the other rcu_node structures will see
	this same prior grace period as still being in progress.

2.	CPU 1 passes through a quiescent state, and therefore informs
	the RCU core.  Because its leaf rcu_node structure has already
	been initialized, this CPU's quiescent state is applied to the
	new (and only partially initialized) grace period.

3.	CPU 1 enters an RCU read-side critical section and acquires
	a reference to data item A.  Note that this critical section
	started after the beginning of the new grace period, and
	therefore will not block this new grace period.

4.	CPU 16 exits dyntick-idle mode.  Because it was in dyntick-idle
	mode, other CPUs informed the RCU core of its extended quiescent
	state for the past several grace periods.  This means that CPU
	16 is not yet aware that these past grace periods have ended.
	Assume that CPU 16 corresponds to the second leaf rcu_node
	structure.

5.	CPU 16 removes data item A from its enclosing data structure
	and passes it to call_rcu(), which queues a callback in the
	RCU_NEXT_TAIL segment of the callback queue.

6.	CPU 16 enters the RCU core, possibly because it has taken a
	scheduling-clock interrupt, or alternatively because it has more
	than 10,000 callbacks queued.  It notes that the second most
	recent grace period has completed (recall that it cannot yet
	become aware that the most recent grace period has completed),
	and therefore advances its callbacks.  The callback for data
	item A is therefore in the RCU_NEXT_READY_TAIL segment of the
	callback queue.

7.	CPU 0 completes initialization of the remaining leaf rcu_node
	structures for the new grace period, including the structure
	corresponding to CPU 16.

8.	CPU 16 again enters the RCU core, again, possibly because it has
	taken a scheduling-clock interrupt, or alternatively because
	it now has more than 10,000 callbacks queued.	It notes that
	the most recent grace period has ended, and therefore advances
	its callbacks.	The callback for data item A is therefore in
	the RCU_WAIT_TAIL segment of the callback queue.

9.	All CPUs other than CPU 1 pass through quiescent states.  Because
	CPU 1 already passed through its quiescent state, the new grace
	period completes.  Note that CPU 1 is still in its RCU read-side
	critical section, still referencing data item A.

10.	Suppose that CPU 2 wais the last CPU to pass through a quiescent
	state for the new grace period, and suppose further that CPU 2
	did not have any callbacks queued, therefore not needing an
	additional grace period.  CPU 2 therefore traverses all of the
	rcu_node structures, marking the new grace period as completed,
	but does not initialize a new grace period.

11.	CPU 16 yet again enters the RCU core, yet again possibly because
	it has taken a scheduling-clock interrupt, or alternatively
	because it now has more than 10,000 callbacks queued.	It notes
	that the new grace period has ended, and therefore advances
	its callbacks.	The callback for data item A is therefore in
	the RCU_DONE_TAIL segment of the callback queue.  This means
	that this callback is now considered ready to be invoked.

12.	CPU 16 invokes the callback, freeing data item A while CPU 1
	is still referencing it.

This scenario represents a day-zero bug for TREE_RCU.  This commit
therefore ensures that the old grace period is marked completed in
all leaf rcu_node structures before a new grace period is marked
started in any of them.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 kernel/rcutree.c |   36 +++++++++++++-----------------------
 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
index d435009..4cfe488 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
@@ -1161,33 +1161,23 @@ static void rcu_gp_cleanup(struct rcu_state *rsp)
 	 * they can do to advance the grace period.  It is therefore
 	 * safe for us to drop the lock in order to mark the grace
 	 * period as completed in all of the rcu_node structures.
-	 *
-	 * But if this CPU needs another grace period, it will take
-	 * care of this while initializing the next grace period.
-	 * We use RCU_WAIT_TAIL instead of the usual RCU_DONE_TAIL
-	 * because the callbacks have not yet been advanced: Those
-	 * callbacks are waiting on the grace period that just now
-	 * completed.
 	 */
-	rdp = this_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda);
-	if (*rdp->nxttail[RCU_WAIT_TAIL] == NULL) {
-		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
 
-		/*
-		 * Propagate new ->completed value to rcu_node
-		 * structures so that other CPUs don't have to
-		 * wait until the start of the next grace period
-		 * to process their callbacks.
-		 */
-		rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first(rsp, rnp) {
-			raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
-			rnp->completed = rsp->gpnum;
-			raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
-			cond_resched();
-		}
-		rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp);
+	/*
+	 * Propagate new ->completed value to rcu_node structures so
+	 * that other CPUs don't have to wait until the start of the next
+	 * grace period to process their callbacks.  This also avoids
+	 * some nasty RCU grace-period initialization races.
+	 */
+	rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first(rsp, rnp) {
 		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
+		rnp->completed = rsp->gpnum;
+		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
+		cond_resched();
 	}
+	rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp);
+	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
 
 	rsp->completed = rsp->gpnum; /* Declare grace period done. */
 	trace_rcu_grace_period(rsp->name, rsp->completed, "end");
-- 
1.7.8


  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-08-30 18:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 85+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-08-30 18:18 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/23] Improvements to RT response on big systems and expedited functions Paul E. McKenney
2012-08-30 18:18 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/23] rcu: Move RCU grace-period initialization into a kthread Paul E. McKenney
2012-08-30 18:18   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/23] rcu: Allow RCU grace-period initialization to be preempted Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-02  1:09     ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-05  1:22       ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-08-30 18:18   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/23] rcu: Move RCU grace-period cleanup into kthread Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-02  1:22     ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-06 13:34     ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 17:29       ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-08-30 18:18   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/23] rcu: Allow RCU grace-period cleanup to be preempted Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-02  1:36     ` Josh Triplett
2012-08-30 18:18   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 05/23] rcu: Prevent offline CPUs from executing RCU core code Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-02  1:45     ` Josh Triplett
2012-08-30 18:18   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/23] rcu: Break up rcu_gp_kthread() into subfunctions Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-02  2:11     ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-06 13:39     ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 17:32       ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-06 18:49         ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-06 19:09           ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 20:30             ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-06 20:30           ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-08-30 18:18   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/23] rcu: Provide OOM handler to motivate lazy RCU callbacks Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-02  2:13     ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-03  9:08     ` Lai Jiangshan
2012-09-05 17:45       ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-06 13:46     ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 13:52       ` Steven Rostedt
2012-09-06 17:41         ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-06 17:46           ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 20:32             ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-08-30 18:18   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/23] rcu: Segregate rcu_state fields to improve cache locality Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-02  2:51     ` Josh Triplett
2012-08-30 18:18   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/23] rcu: Move quiescent-state forcing into kthread Paul E. McKenney
2012-08-30 18:18   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 10/23] rcu: Allow RCU quiescent-state forcing to be preempted Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-02  5:23     ` Josh Triplett
2012-08-30 18:18   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/23] rcu: Adjust debugfs tracing for kthread-based quiescent-state forcing Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-02  6:05     ` Josh Triplett
2012-08-30 18:18   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 12/23] rcu: Prevent force_quiescent_state() memory contention Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-02 10:47     ` Josh Triplett
2012-08-30 18:18   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/23] rcu: Control grace-period duration from sysfs Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-03  9:30     ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-03  9:31       ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-06 14:15     ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 17:53       ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-06 18:28         ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 20:37           ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-08-30 18:18   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 14/23] rcu: Remove now-unused rcu_state fields Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-03  9:31     ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-06 14:17     ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 18:02       ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-08-30 18:18   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 15/23] rcu: Make rcutree module parameters visible in sysfs Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-03  9:32     ` Josh Triplett
2012-08-30 18:18   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/23] rcu: Prevent initialization-time quiescent-state race Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-03  9:37     ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-05 18:19       ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-05 18:55         ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-05 19:49           ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-06 14:21         ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 16:18           ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-06 16:22             ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-08-30 18:18   ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2012-09-03  9:39     ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 17/23] rcu: Fix day-zero grace-period initialization/cleanup race Josh Triplett
2012-09-06 14:24     ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 18:06       ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-08-30 18:18   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 18/23] rcu: Add random PROVE_RCU_DELAY to grace-period initialization Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-03  9:41     ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-06 14:27     ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 18:25       ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-08-30 18:18   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 19/23] rcu: Adjust for unconditional ->completed assignment Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-03  9:42     ` Josh Triplett
2012-08-30 18:18   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 20/23] rcu: Remove callback acceleration from grace-period initialization Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-03  9:42     ` Josh Triplett
2012-08-30 18:18   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/23] rcu: Eliminate signed overflow in synchronize_rcu_expedited() Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-03  9:43     ` Josh Triplett
2012-08-30 18:18   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 22/23] rcu: Reduce synchronize_rcu_expedited() latency Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-03  9:46     ` Josh Triplett
2012-08-30 18:18   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 23/23] rcu: Simplify quiescent-state detection Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-03  9:56     ` Josh Triplett
2012-09-06 14:36     ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 20:01       ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-06 21:18         ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2012-09-06 21:31           ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-02  1:04   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/23] rcu: Move RCU grace-period initialization into a kthread Josh Triplett
2012-09-06 13:32   ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-06 17:00     ` Paul E. McKenney

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=1346350718-30937-17-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=darren@dvhart.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=patches@linaro.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sbw@mit.edu \
    --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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).