From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rcu: Remove needless preemption disablement in rcu_all_qs()
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2021 21:28:38 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YORahrFT56utjlc/@boqun-archlinux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210706123058.GB107277@lothringen>
On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 02:30:58PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 09:51:01AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 01:43:44AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > The preemption is already disabled when we write rcu_data.rcu_urgent_qs.
> > > We can use __this_cpu_write() directly, although that path is mostly
> > > used when CONFIG_PREEMPT=n.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
> > > Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> > > Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
> > > Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > index 27b74352cccf..38b3d01424d7 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > @@ -871,7 +871,7 @@ void rcu_all_qs(void)
> > > preempt_enable();
> > > return;
> > > }
> > > - this_cpu_write(rcu_data.rcu_urgent_qs, false);
> > > + __this_cpu_write(rcu_data.rcu_urgent_qs, false);
> >
> > There's another subtle difference between this_cpu_write() and
> > __this_cpu_write() aside from preempt. this_cpu_write() is also
> > IRQ-safe, while __this_cpu_write() is not.
> >
> > I've not looked at the usage here to see if that is relevant, but the
> > Changelog only mentioned the preempt side of things, and that argument
> > is incomplete in general.
>
> You're right, I missed that. I see this rcu_urgent_qs is set by
> RCU TASKS from rcu_tasks_wait_gp() (did I missed another path?).
> Not sure if this is called from IRQ nor if it actually matters to
> protect against IRQs for that single write.
I think __this_cpu_write() being IRQ-unsafe means it may overwrite
percpu writes to other bytes in the same word? Let's say the
rcu_urgent_qs is the lowest byte in the word, the pseduo asm code of
__this_cpu_write() may be:
__this_cpu_write(ptr, v):
long tmp = *ptr;
tmp &= ~(0xff);
tmp |= v;
*ptr = tmp;
and the following sequence introduces an overwrite:
__this_cpu_write(ptr, v): // v is 0, and *ptr is 1
long tmp = *ptr; // tmp is 1
<interrupted>
this_cpu_write() // modify another byte of *ptr, make it
// 0xff01
<ret from interrupt>
tmp &= ~(0xff) // tmp is 0
tmp |=v; // tmp is 0
*ptr = tmp; // *ptr is 0, overwrite a percpu write on
// another field.
I know that many archs have byte-wise store, so compilers don't really
have the reason to generate code as above, but __this_cpu_write() is
just a normal write, nothing prevents this from happenning, unless I'm
missing something here?
Regards,
Boqun
>
> I'm not quite used to rcu_tasks. Paul?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-06 13:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-05 23:43 [PATCH 1/2] rcu: Explain why rcu_all_qs() is a stub in preemptible TREE RCU Frederic Weisbecker
2021-07-05 23:43 ` [PATCH 2/2] rcu: Remove needless preemption disablement in rcu_all_qs() Frederic Weisbecker
2021-07-06 7:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-07-06 12:30 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-07-06 13:28 ` Boqun Feng [this message]
2021-07-06 16:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-06 16:46 ` [PATCH 1/2] rcu: Explain why rcu_all_qs() is a stub in preemptible TREE RCU 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=YORahrFT56utjlc/@boqun-archlinux \
--to=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=neeraju@codeaurora.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=urezki@gmail.com \
/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).