From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56FE2C3A5A0 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 12:58:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DA85205C9 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 12:58:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727301AbfHSM63 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:58:29 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:8470 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727172AbfHSM62 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:58:28 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x7JCqCgj008504; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:57:56 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ufu5tjw51-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:57:56 -0400 Received: from m0098399.ppops.net (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x7JCu6e3019867; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:57:56 -0400 Received: from ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com (aa.5b.37a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.55.91.170]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ufu5tjw4d-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:57:56 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x7JCswe1021922; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 12:57:55 GMT Received: from b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.24]) by ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 2ue9761fpt-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 19 Aug 2019 12:57:55 +0000 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x7JCvs7e53674446 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 19 Aug 2019 12:57:54 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94B8EB2066; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 12:57:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55EC4B2065; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 12:57:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.85.201.199]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 12:57:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9410116C13AF; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 05:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 05:57:57 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Joel Fernandes Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Josh Triplett , Lai Jiangshan , Mathieu Desnoyers , rcu@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [RFC v2] rcu/tree: Try to invoke_rcu_core() if in_irq() during unlock Message-ID: <20190819125757.GA6946@linux.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com References: <20190818214948.GA134430@google.com> <20190818221210.GP28441@linux.ibm.com> <20190818223230.GA143857@google.com> <20190818223511.GB143857@google.com> <20190818233135.GQ28441@linux.ibm.com> <20190818233839.GA160903@google.com> <20190819012153.GR28441@linux.ibm.com> <20190819014143.GB160903@google.com> <20190819014623.GC160903@google.com> <20190819022927.GS28441@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190819022927.GS28441@linux.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-08-19_03:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1908190146 Sender: rcu-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: rcu@vger.kernel.org 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? Thanx, Paul