From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.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: [PATCH 1/2] rcu/tree: Add a warning if CPU being onlined did not report QS already
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 21:42:22 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200731014222.GA2349603@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200730162159.GZ9247@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 09:21:59AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:02:20PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > Add a warning if CPU being onlined did not report QS already. This is to
> > simplify the code in the CPU onlining path and also to make clear about
> > where QS is reported. The act of QS reporting in CPU onlining path is
> > is likely unnecessary as shown by code reading and testing with
> > rcutorture's TREE03 and hotplug parameters.
>
> How about something like this for the commit log?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Currently, rcu_cpu_starting() checks to see if the RCU core expects a
> quiescent state from the incoming CPU. However, the current interaction
> between RCU quiescent-state reporting and CPU-hotplug operations should
> mean that the incoming CPU never needs to report a quiescent state.
> First, the outgoing CPU reports a quiescent state if needed. Second,
> the race where the CPU is leaving just as RCU is initializing a new
> grace period is handled by an explicit check for this condition. Third,
> the CPU's leaf rcu_node structure's ->lock serializes these checks.
>
> This means that if rcu_cpu_starting() ever feels the need to report
> a quiescent state, then there is a bug somewhere in the CPU hotplug
> code or the RCU grace-period handling code. This commit therefore
> adds a WARN_ON_ONCE() to bring that bug to everyone's attention.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
> > Suggested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> >
> > ---
> > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index 65e1b5e92319..1e51962b565b 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -3996,7 +3996,19 @@ void rcu_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu)
> > rcu_gpnum_ovf(rnp, rdp); /* Offline-induced counter wrap? */
> > rdp->rcu_onl_gp_seq = READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_seq);
> > rdp->rcu_onl_gp_flags = READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags);
> > - if (rnp->qsmask & mask) { /* RCU waiting on incoming CPU? */
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Delete QS reporting from here, by June 2021, if warning does not
> > + * fire. Let us make the rules for reporting QS for an offline CPUs
> > + * more explicit. The CPU onlining path does not need to report QS for
> > + * an offline CPU. Either the QS should have reported during CPU
> > + * offlining, or during rcu_gp_init() if it detected a race with either
> > + * CPU offlining or task unblocking on previously offlined CPUs. Note
> > + * that the FQS loop also does not report QS for an offline CPU any
> > + * longer (unless it splats due to an offline CPU blocking the GP for
> > + * too long).
> > + */
>
> Let's leave at least the WARN_ON_ONCE() indefinitely. If you don't
> believe me, remove this code in your local tree, have someone give you
> several branches, some with bugs injected, and then try to figure out
> which have the bugs and then try to find those bugs.
>
> This is not a fastpath, so the overhead of the check is not a concern.
> Believe me, the difficulty of bug location without this check is a very
> real concern! ;-)
>
> On the other hand, I fully agree with the benefits of documenting the
> design rules. But is this really the best place to do that from the
> viewpoint of someone who is trying to figure out how RCU works?
I can move this comment to: "Hotplug CPU" section in
Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst
And I could make the comment here as:
/*
* Delete QS reporting from here, by June 2021, if the warning does not
* fire. Leave the warning indefinitely. Check RCU design requirements
* in Documentation/RCU/ about CPU hotplug requirements.
*/
I will post my v3 with changes to the requirements document.
Let me know any other comments, thanks,
- Joel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-31 1:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-30 3:02 [PATCH 1/2] rcu/tree: Add a warning if CPU being onlined did not report QS already Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-07-30 3:02 ` [PATCH 2/2] rcu/tree: Clarify comments about FQS loop reporting quiescent states Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-07-30 3:25 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-07-30 16:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-07-31 1:21 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-07-31 1:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-07-30 16:21 ` [PATCH 1/2] rcu/tree: Add a warning if CPU being onlined did not report QS already Paul E. McKenney
2020-07-31 1:08 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-07-31 1:42 ` Joel Fernandes [this message]
2020-07-31 3:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-08-07 15:37 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-08-07 15:45 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-09-29 19:29 Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-10-02 4:39 ` 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=20200731014222.GA2349603@google.com \
--to=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=neeraju@codeaurora.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--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).