From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Ran Rozenstein <ranro@mellanox.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"mingo@kernel.org" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"jiangshanlai@gmail.com" <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
"dipankar@in.ibm.com" <dipankar@in.ibm.com>,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com" <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
"josh@joshtriplett.org" <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"rostedt@goodmis.org" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
"dhowells@redhat.com" <dhowells@redhat.com>,
"edumazet@google.com" <edumazet@google.com>,
"fweisbec@gmail.com" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
"oleg@redhat.com" <oleg@redhat.com>,
Maor Gottlieb <maorg@mellanox.com>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@mellanox.com>,
Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@mellanox.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leonro@mellanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/19] rcu: Defer reporting RCU-preempt quiescent states when disabled
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:44:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181030034452.GA224709@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181029142735.GZ4170@linux.ibm.com>
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 07:27:35AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 11:24:42AM +0000, Ran Rozenstein wrote:
> > Hi Paul and all,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel-
> > > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Paul E. McKenney
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 01:21
> > > To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > > Cc: mingo@kernel.org; jiangshanlai@gmail.com; dipankar@in.ibm.com;
> > > akpm@linux-foundation.org; mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com;
> > > josh@joshtriplett.org; tglx@linutronix.de; peterz@infradead.org;
> > > rostedt@goodmis.org; dhowells@redhat.com; edumazet@google.com;
> > > fweisbec@gmail.com; oleg@redhat.com; joel@joelfernandes.org; Paul E.
> > > McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/19] rcu: Defer reporting RCU-preempt
> > > quiescent states when disabled
> > >
> > > This commit defers reporting of RCU-preempt quiescent states at
> > > rcu_read_unlock_special() time when any of interrupts, softirq, or
> > > preemption are disabled. These deferred quiescent states are reported at a
> > > later RCU_SOFTIRQ, context switch, idle entry, or CPU-hotplug offline
> > > operation. Of course, if another RCU read-side critical section has started in
> > > the meantime, the reporting of the quiescent state will be further deferred.
> > >
> > > This also means that disabling preemption, interrupts, and/or softirqs will act
> > > as an RCU-preempt read-side critical section.
> > > This is enforced by checking preempt_count() as needed.
> > >
> > > Some special cases must be handled on an ad-hoc basis, for example,
> > > context switch is a quiescent state even though both the scheduler and
> > > do_exit() disable preemption. In these cases, additional calls to
> > > rcu_preempt_deferred_qs() override the preemption disabling. Similar logic
> > > overrides disabled interrupts in rcu_preempt_check_callbacks() because in
> > > this case the quiescent state happened just before the corresponding
> > > scheduling-clock interrupt.
> > >
> > > In theory, this change lifts a long-standing restriction that required that if
> > > interrupts were disabled across a call to rcu_read_unlock() that the matching
> > > rcu_read_lock() also be contained within that interrupts-disabled region of
> > > code. Because the reporting of the corresponding RCU-preempt quiescent
> > > state is now deferred until after interrupts have been enabled, it is no longer
> > > possible for this situation to result in deadlocks involving the scheduler's
> > > runqueue and priority-inheritance locks. This may allow some code
> > > simplification that might reduce interrupt latency a bit. Unfortunately, in
> > > practice this would also defer deboosting a low-priority task that had been
> > > subjected to RCU priority boosting, so real-time-response considerations
> > > might well force this restriction to remain in place.
> > >
> > > Because RCU-preempt grace periods are now blocked not only by RCU read-
> > > side critical sections, but also by disabling of interrupts, preemption, and
> > > softirqs, it will be possible to eliminate RCU-bh and RCU-sched in favor of
> > > RCU-preempt in CONFIG_PREEMPT=y kernels. This may require some
> > > additional plumbing to provide the network denial-of-service guarantees
> > > that have been traditionally provided by RCU-bh. Once these are in place,
> > > CONFIG_PREEMPT=n kernels will be able to fold RCU-bh into RCU-sched.
> > > This would mean that all kernels would have but one flavor of RCU, which
> > > would open the door to significant code cleanup.
> > >
> > > Moving to a single flavor of RCU would also have the beneficial effect of
> > > reducing the NOCB kthreads by at least a factor of two.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [ paulmck:
> > > Apply rcu_read_unlock_special() preempt_count() feedback
> > > from Joel Fernandes. ]
> > > [ paulmck: Adjust rcu_eqs_enter() call to rcu_preempt_deferred_qs() in
> > > response to bug reports from kbuild test robot. ] [ paulmck: Fix bug located
> > > by kbuild test robot involving recursion
> > > via rcu_preempt_deferred_qs(). ]
> > > ---
> > > .../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html | 50 +++---
> > > include/linux/rcutiny.h | 5 +
> > > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 9 ++
> > > kernel/rcu/tree.h | 3 +
> > > kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h | 71 +++++++--
> > > kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 144 +++++++++++++-----
> > > 6 files changed, 205 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-)
> > >
> >
> > We started seeing the trace below in our regression system, after I bisected I found this is the offending commit.
> > This appears immediately on boot.
> > Please let me know if you need any additional details.
>
> Interesting. Here is the offending function:
>
> static void rcu_preempt_deferred_qs(struct task_struct *t)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> bool couldrecurse = t->rcu_read_lock_nesting >= 0;
>
> if (!rcu_preempt_need_deferred_qs(t))
> return;
> if (couldrecurse)
> t->rcu_read_lock_nesting -= INT_MIN;
> local_irq_save(flags);
> rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(t, flags);
> if (couldrecurse)
> t->rcu_read_lock_nesting += INT_MIN;
> }
>
> Using twos-complement arithmetic (which the kernel build gcc arguments
> enforce, last I checked) this does work. But as UBSAN says, subtracting
> INT_MIN is unconditionally undefined behavior according to the C standard.
>
> Good catch!!!
>
> So how do I make the above code not simply function, but rather meet
> the C standard?
>
> One approach to add INT_MIN going in, then add INT_MAX and then add 1
> coming out.
>
> Another approach is to sacrifice the INT_MAX value (should be plenty
> safe), thus subtract INT_MAX going in and add INT_MAX coming out.
> For consistency, I suppose that I should change the INT_MIN in
> __rcu_read_unlock() to -INT_MAX.
>
> I could also leave __rcu_read_unlock() alone and XOR the top
> bit of t->rcu_read_lock_nesting on entry and exit to/from
> rcu_preempt_deferred_qs().
>
> Sacrificing the INT_MIN value seems most maintainable, as in the following
> patch. Thoughts?
The INT_MAX naming could be very confusing for nesting levels, could we not
instead just define something like:
#define RCU_NESTING_MIN (INT_MIN - 1)
#define RCU_NESTING_MAX (INT_MAX)
and just use that? also one more comment below:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> index bd8186d0f4a7..f1b40c6d36e4 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> @@ -424,7 +424,7 @@ void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
> --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting;
> } else {
> barrier(); /* critical section before exit code. */
> - t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = INT_MIN;
> + t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = -INT_MAX;
> barrier(); /* assign before ->rcu_read_unlock_special load */
> if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s)))
> rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> @@ -617,11 +617,11 @@ static void rcu_preempt_deferred_qs(struct task_struct *t)
> if (!rcu_preempt_need_deferred_qs(t))
> return;
> if (couldrecurse)
> - t->rcu_read_lock_nesting -= INT_MIN;
> + t->rcu_read_lock_nesting -= INT_MAX;
Shouldn't this be: t->rcu_read_lock_nesting -= -INT_MAX; ?
> local_irq_save(flags);
> rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(t, flags);
> if (couldrecurse)
> - t->rcu_read_lock_nesting += INT_MIN;
> + t->rcu_read_lock_nesting += INT_MAX;
And t->rcu_read_lock_nesting += -INT_MAX; ?
But apologies if I missed something, thanks,
- Joel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-30 3:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-08-29 22:20 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/19] RCU flavor-consolidation changes for v4.20/v5.0 Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-29 22:20 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/19] rcu: Refactor rcu_{nmi,irq}_{enter,exit}() Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-30 18:10 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-08-30 23:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-31 2:25 ` Byungchul Park
2018-08-29 22:20 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/19] rcu: Defer reporting RCU-preempt quiescent states when disabled Paul E. McKenney
2018-10-29 11:24 ` Ran Rozenstein
2018-10-29 14:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-10-30 3:44 ` Joel Fernandes [this message]
2018-10-30 12:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-10-30 22:21 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-10-31 18:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-02 19:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-26 13:55 ` Ran Rozenstein
2018-11-26 19:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-29 22:20 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/19] rcutorture: Test extended "rcu" read-side critical sections Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-29 22:20 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/19] rcu: Allow processing deferred QSes for exiting RCU-preempt readers Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-29 22:20 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 05/19] rcu: Remove now-unused ->b.exp_need_qs field from the rcu_special union Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-29 22:20 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/19] rcu: Add warning to detect half-interrupts Paul E. McKenney
2019-03-11 13:39 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-03-11 22:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-03-12 15:05 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-03-12 15:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-03-13 15:09 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-03-13 15:27 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-03-13 15:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-03-13 16:51 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-03-13 18:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-03-14 12:31 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-03-14 13:36 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-03-14 13:37 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-03-14 21:27 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-03-15 7:31 ` Byungchul Park
2019-03-15 7:44 ` Byungchul Park
2019-03-15 13:46 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-08-29 22:20 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/19] rcu: Apply RCU-bh QSes to RCU-sched and RCU-preempt when safe Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-29 22:20 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/19] rcu: Report expedited grace periods at context-switch time Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-29 22:20 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/19] rcu: Define RCU-bh update API in terms of RCU Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-29 22:20 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 10/19] rcu: Update comments and help text for no more RCU-bh updaters Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-29 22:20 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/19] rcu: Drop "wake" parameter from rcu_report_exp_rdp() Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-29 22:20 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 12/19] rcu: Fix typo in rcu_get_gp_kthreads_prio() header comment Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-29 22:20 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/19] rcu: Define RCU-sched API in terms of RCU for Tree RCU PREEMPT builds Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-29 22:20 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 14/19] rcu: Express Tiny RCU updates in terms of RCU rather than RCU-sched Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-29 22:20 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 15/19] rcu: Remove RCU_STATE_INITIALIZER() Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-29 22:20 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/19] rcu: Eliminate rcu_state structure's ->call field Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-29 22:20 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 17/19] rcu: Remove rcu_state structure's ->rda field Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-29 22:20 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 18/19] rcu: Remove rcu_state_p pointer to default rcu_state structure Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-29 22:20 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 19/19] rcu: Remove rcu_data_p pointer to default rcu_data structure Paul E. McKenney
2018-08-29 22:22 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/19] RCU flavor-consolidation changes for v4.20/v5.0 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=20181030034452.GA224709@google.com \
--to=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=eranbe@mellanox.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=leonro@mellanox.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maorg@mellanox.com \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ranro@mellanox.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tariqt@mellanox.com \
--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).