From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] rcu/tree: Try to invoke_rcu_core() if in_irq() during unlock
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:41:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190819154143.GA18470@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190819143314.GT28441@linux.ibm.com>
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 07:33:14AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 05:57:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 07:29:27PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:46:23PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:41:43PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 06:21:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > > Also, your commit log's point #2 is "in_irq() implies in_interrupt()
> > > > > > > > which implies raising softirq will not do any wake ups." This mention
> > > > > > > > of softirq seems a bit odd, given that we are going to wake up a rcuc
> > > > > > > > kthread. Of course, this did nothing to quell my suspicions. ;-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, I should delete this #2 from the changelog since it is not very relevant
> > > > > > > (I feel now). My point with #2 was that even if were to raise a softirq
> > > > > > > (which we are not), a scheduler wakeup of ksoftirqd is impossible in this
> > > > > > > path anyway since in_irq() implies in_interrupt().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please! Could you also add a first-principles explanation of why
> > > > > > the added condition is immune from scheduler deadlocks?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure I can add an example in the change log, however I was thinking of this
> > > > > example which you mentioned:
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190627173831.GW26519@linux.ibm.com/
> > > > >
> > > > > previous_reader()
> > > > > {
> > > > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > do_something(); /* Preemption happened here. */
> > > > > local_irq_disable(); /* Cannot be the scheduler! */
> > > > > do_something_else();
> > > > > rcu_read_unlock(); /* Must defer QS, task still queued. */
> > > > > do_some_other_thing();
> > > > > local_irq_enable();
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > current_reader() /* QS from previous_reader() is still deferred. */
> > > > > {
> > > > > local_irq_disable(); /* Might be the scheduler. */
> > > > > do_whatever();
> > > > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > do_whatever_else();
> > > > > rcu_read_unlock(); /* Must still defer reporting QS. */
> > > > > do_whatever_comes_to_mind();
> > > > > local_irq_enable();
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > One modification of the example could be, previous_reader() could also do:
> > > > > previous_reader()
> > > > > {
> > > > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > do_something_that_takes_really_long(); /* causes need_qs in
> > > > > the unlock_special_union to be set */
> > > > > local_irq_disable(); /* Cannot be the scheduler! */
> > > > > do_something_else();
> > > > > rcu_read_unlock(); /* Must defer QS, task still queued. */
> > > > > do_some_other_thing();
> > > > > local_irq_enable();
> > > > > }
> > > >
> > > > The point you were making in that thread being, current_reader() ->
> > > > rcu_read_unlock() -> rcu_read_unlock_special() would not do any wakeups
> > > > because previous_reader() sets the deferred_qs bit.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, I will add all of this into the changelog.
> > >
> > > Examples are good, but what makes it so that there are no examples of
> > > its being unsafe?
> > >
> > > And a few questions along the way, some quick quiz, some more serious.
> > > Would it be safe if it checked in_interrupt() instead of in_irq()?
> > > If not, should the in_interrupt() in the "if" condition preceding the
> > > added "else if" be changed to in_irq()? Would it make sense to add an
> > > "|| !irqs_were_disabled" do your new "else if" condition? Would the
> > > body of the "else if" actually be executed in current mainline?
> > >
> > > In an attempt to be at least a little constructive, I am doing some
> > > testing of this patch overnight, along with a WARN_ON_ONCE() to see if
> > > that invoke_rcu_core() is ever reached.
> >
> > And that WARN_ON_ONCE() never triggered in two-hour rcutorture runs of
> > TREE01, TREE02, TREE03, and TREE09. (These are the TREE variants in
> > CFLIST that have CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.)
> >
> > This of course raises other questions. But first, do you see that code
> > executing in your testing?
>
> Never mind! Idiot here forgot the "--bootargs rcutree.use_softirq"...
So this time I ran the test this way:
tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh --cpus 8 --duration 10 --configs "TREE01 TREE02 TREE03 TREE09" --bootargs "rcutree.use_softirq=0"
Still no splats. Though only 10-minute runs instead of the two-hour runs
I did last night. (Got other stuff I need to do, sorry!)
My test version of your patch is shown below. Please let me know if I messed
something up.
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
index 2defc7fe74c3..abf2fbba2568 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
@@ -621,6 +621,10 @@ static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
// Using softirq, safe to awaken, and we get
// no help from enabling irqs, unlike bh/preempt.
raise_softirq_irqoff(RCU_SOFTIRQ);
+ } else if (exp && in_irq() && !use_softirq &&
+ !t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.deferred_qs) {
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(1); // Live code?
+ invoke_rcu_core();
} else {
// Enabling BH or preempt does reschedule, so...
// Also if no expediting or NO_HZ_FULL, slow is OK.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-19 15:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-18 21:49 [RFC v2] rcu/tree: Try to invoke_rcu_core() if in_irq() during unlock Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-08-18 22:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-18 22:32 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-18 22:35 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-18 23:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-18 23:38 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-19 1:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-19 1:41 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-19 1:46 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-19 2:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-19 12:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-19 14:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-19 15:41 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2019-08-19 16:25 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-21 14:38 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-21 14:56 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-21 15:26 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-21 15:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-21 15:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-21 15:46 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-21 15:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-20 0:14 ` Scott Wood
2019-08-20 1:40 ` Joel Fernandes
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=20190819154143.GA18470@linux.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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
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).