From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 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,
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 18/23] rcu: Add random PROVE_RCU_DELAY to grace-period initialization
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:27:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1346941673.18408.21.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1346350718-30937-18-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 11:18 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> 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 ended, but
> CPUs corresponding to the other rcu_node structures cannot
> yet become aware of this.
>
> 2. CPU 1 passes through a quiescent state, and therefore informs
> the RCU core. Because its leaf rcu_node structure has already
> been initialized, so 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
> will not block the new grace period.
>
> 4. CPU 16 exits dyntick-idle mode. Because it was in dyntick-idle
> mode, some other CPU 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 grace periods have ended.
>
> 5. CPU 16 on the second leaf rcu_node structure 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 ended (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_NEXT_TAIL segment of the callback queue.
>
> 9. All CPUs other than CPU 1 pass through quiescent states, so that
> 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 is the last CPU to pass through a quiescent
> state for the new grace period, and suppose further that CPU 2
> does not have any callbacks queued. It 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 is the same scenario as the previous patch (17), right?
However did you find a 12-stage race like that, is that PROMELA goodness
or are you training to beat some chess champion?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-06 14:29 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 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 17/23] rcu: Fix day-zero grace-period initialization/cleanup race Paul E. McKenney
2012-09-03 9:39 ` 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 [this message]
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=1346941673.18408.21.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--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=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--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).