From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/11] rcu: don't use negative ->rcu_read_lock_nesting
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 13:53:39 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191117215339.GD2889@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3437ee3f-2807-16eb-5e9b-77189fa31cdf@linux.alibaba.com>
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 09:04:56PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 2019/11/1 8:33 下午, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:08:03AM +0000, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > > Negative ->rcu_read_lock_nesting was introduced to prevent
> > > scheduler deadlock which was just prevented by deferred qs.
> > > So negative ->rcu_read_lock_nesting is useless now and
> > > rcu_read_unlock() can be simplified.
> > >
> > > And negative ->rcu_read_lock_nesting is bug-prone,
> > > it is good to kill it.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h | 30 ++----------------------------
> > > kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 21 +++++----------------
> > > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > > index c0d06bce35ea..9dcbd2734620 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > > @@ -621,11 +621,11 @@ static void rcu_exp_handler(void *unused)
> > > * report the quiescent state, otherwise defer.
> > > */
> > > if (!t->rcu_read_lock_nesting) {
> > > + rdp->exp_deferred_qs = true;
> > > if (!(preempt_count() & (PREEMPT_MASK | SOFTIRQ_MASK)) ||
> > > rcu_dynticks_curr_cpu_in_eqs()) {
> > > - rcu_report_exp_rdp(rdp);
> > > + rcu_preempt_deferred_qs(t);
> > > } else {
> > > - rdp->exp_deferred_qs = true;
> > > set_tsk_need_resched(t);
> > > set_preempt_need_resched();
> > > }
> > > @@ -646,32 +646,6 @@ static void rcu_exp_handler(void *unused)
> > > WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, true);
> > > return;
> > > }
> > > -
> > > - /*
> > > - * The final and least likely case is where the interrupted
> > > - * code was just about to or just finished exiting the RCU-preempt
> > > - * read-side critical section, and no, we can't tell which.
> > > - * So either way, set ->deferred_qs to flag later code that
> > > - * a quiescent state is required.
> > > - *
> > > - * If the CPU is fully enabled (or if some buggy RCU-preempt
> > > - * read-side critical section is being used from idle), just
> > > - * invoke rcu_preempt_deferred_qs() to immediately report the
> > > - * quiescent state. We cannot use rcu_read_unlock_special()
> > > - * because we are in an interrupt handler, which will cause that
> > > - * function to take an early exit without doing anything.
> > > - *
> > > - * Otherwise, force a context switch after the CPU enables everything.
> > > - */
> > > - rdp->exp_deferred_qs = true;
> > > - if (rcu_preempt_need_deferred_qs(t) &&
> > > - (!(preempt_count() & (PREEMPT_MASK | SOFTIRQ_MASK)) ||
> > > - WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_dynticks_curr_cpu_in_eqs()))) {
> > > - rcu_preempt_deferred_qs(t);
> > > - } else {
> > > - set_tsk_need_resched(t);
> > > - set_preempt_need_resched();
> > > - }
> > > }
> > > /* PREEMPTION=y, so no PREEMPTION=n expedited grace period to clean up after. */
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > index dbded2b8c792..c62631c79463 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > @@ -344,8 +344,6 @@ static int rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> > > }
> > > /* Bias and limit values for ->rcu_read_lock_nesting. */
> > > -#define RCU_NEST_BIAS INT_MAX
> > > -#define RCU_NEST_NMAX (-INT_MAX / 2)
> > > #define RCU_NEST_PMAX (INT_MAX / 2)
> > > /*
> > > @@ -373,21 +371,15 @@ void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
> > > {
> > > struct task_struct *t = current;
> > > - if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting != 1) {
> > > - --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting;
> > > - } else {
> > > + if (--t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0) {
> > > barrier(); /* critical section before exit code. */
> > > - t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = -RCU_NEST_BIAS;
> > > - barrier(); /* assign before ->rcu_read_unlock_special load */
> >
> > But if we take an interrupt here, and the interrupt handler contains
> > an RCU read-side critical section, don't we end up in the same hole
> > that resulted in this article when the corresponding rcu_read_unlock()
> > executes? https://lwn.net/Articles/453002/
>
> Hello, Paul
>
> I'm replying the email of V1, which is relying on deferred_qs changes
> in [PATCH 07/11] (V1).
> ([PATCH 04/11](V1) relies on it too as you pointed out)
>
> I hope I can answer the question wrt https://lwn.net/Articles/453002/
> maybe partially.
>
> With the help of deferred_qs mechanism and the special.b.deferred_qs
> bit, I HOPED rcu_read_unlock_special() can find if itself is
> risking in scheduler locks via special.b.deferred_qs bit.
>
> --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting;
> //outmost rcu c.s, rcu_read_lock_nesting is 0. but special is not zero
> INTERRUPT
> // the fallowing code will normally be in_interrupt()
> // or NOT in_interrupt() when wakeup_softirqd() in invoke_softirq()
> // or NOT in_interrupt() when preempt_shedule_irq()
> // or other cases I missed.
> scheduler_lock()
> rcu_read_lock()
> rcu_read_unlock()
> // special has been set but with no special.b.deferred_qs
> rcu_read_unlock_special()
> raise_softirq_irqoff()
> wake_up() when !in_interrupt() // dead lock
>
> preempt_shedule_irq() is guaranteed to clear rcu_read_unlock_special
> when rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0 before calling into scheduler locks.
>
> But, at least, what caused my hope to be failed was the case
> wakeup_softirqd() in invoke_softirq() (which was once protected by
> softirq in about 2 years between ec433f0c5152 and facd8b80c67a).
> I don't think it is hard to fix it if we keep using
> special.b.deferred_qs as this V1 series.
It is quite possible that special.b.deferred_qs might be useful
for debugging. But it should now be possible to take care of the
nohz_full issue for expedited grace periods, which might in turn allow
rcu_read_unlock_special() to avoid acquiring scheduler locks.
This could avoid the need for negative ->rcu_read_lock_nesting,
in turn allowing your simplified _rcu_read_unlock().
Would you like to do the expedited grace-period modifications, or
would you rather that I do so?
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-17 23:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-31 10:07 [PATCH 00/11] rcu: introduce percpu rcu_preempt_depth Lai Jiangshan
2019-10-31 10:07 ` [PATCH 01/11] rcu: avoid leaking exp_deferred_qs into next GP Lai Jiangshan
2019-10-31 13:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-10-31 18:19 ` Lai Jiangshan
2019-10-31 19:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-10-31 10:07 ` [PATCH 02/11] rcu: fix bug when rcu_exp_handler() in nested interrupt Lai Jiangshan
2019-10-31 13:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-10-31 14:20 ` Lai Jiangshan
2019-10-31 14:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-10-31 15:14 ` Lai Jiangshan
2019-10-31 18:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-01 0:19 ` Boqun Feng
2019-11-01 2:29 ` Lai Jiangshan
2019-10-31 10:07 ` [PATCH 03/11] rcu: clean up rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore() Lai Jiangshan
2019-10-31 13:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-10-31 15:25 ` Lai Jiangshan
2019-10-31 18:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-10-31 19:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-10-31 10:07 ` [PATCH 04/11] rcu: cleanup rcu_preempt_deferred_qs() Lai Jiangshan
2019-10-31 14:10 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-10-31 14:35 ` Lai Jiangshan
2019-10-31 15:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-10-31 18:33 ` Lai Jiangshan
2019-10-31 22:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-10-31 10:08 ` [PATCH 05/11] rcu: clean all rcu_read_unlock_special after report qs Lai Jiangshan
2019-11-01 11:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-10-31 10:08 ` [PATCH 06/11] rcu: clear t->rcu_read_unlock_special in one go Lai Jiangshan
2019-11-01 12:10 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-01 16:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-10-31 10:08 ` [PATCH 07/11] rcu: set special.b.deferred_qs before wake_up() Lai Jiangshan
2019-10-31 10:08 ` [PATCH 08/11] rcu: don't use negative ->rcu_read_lock_nesting Lai Jiangshan
2019-11-01 12:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-16 13:04 ` Lai Jiangshan
2019-11-17 21:53 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2019-11-18 1:54 ` Lai Jiangshan
2019-11-18 14:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-10-31 10:08 ` [PATCH 09/11] rcu: wrap usages of rcu_read_lock_nesting Lai Jiangshan
2019-10-31 10:08 ` [PATCH 10/11] rcu: clear the special.b.need_qs in rcu_note_context_switch() Lai Jiangshan
2019-10-31 10:08 ` [PATCH 11/11] x86,rcu: use percpu rcu_preempt_depth Lai Jiangshan
2019-11-01 12:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-01 13:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-01 14:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-01 15:32 ` Lai Jiangshan
2019-11-01 16:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-01 15:47 ` Lai Jiangshan
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=20191117215339.GD2889@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72 \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@linux.alibaba.com \
--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).