From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] rcu/nocb: Protect lazy shrinker against concurrent (de-)offloading
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:18:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c614c542-f2b5-4b39-bbc4-ae5f0a125c81@paulmck-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230322194456.2331527-2-frederic@kernel.org>
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 08:44:53PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> The shrinker may run concurrently with callbacks (de-)offloading. As
> such, calling rcu_nocb_lock() is very dangerous because it does a
> conditional locking. The worst outcome is that rcu_nocb_lock() doesn't
> lock but rcu_nocb_unlock() eventually unlocks, or the reverse, creating
> an imbalance.
>
> Fix this with protecting against (de-)offloading using the barrier mutex.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Good catch!!! A few questions, comments, and speculations below.
Thanx, Paul
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> index f2280616f9d5..dd9b655ae533 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> @@ -1336,13 +1336,25 @@ lazy_rcu_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
> unsigned long flags;
> unsigned long count = 0;
>
> + /*
> + * Protect against concurrent (de-)offloading. Otherwise nocb locking
> + * may be ignored or imbalanced.
> + */
> + mutex_lock(&rcu_state.barrier_mutex);
I was worried about this possibly leading to out-of-memory deadlock,
but if I recall correctly, the (de-)offloading process never allocates
memory, so this should be OK?
The other concern was that the (de-)offloading operation might take a
long time, but the usual cause for that is huge numbers of callbacks,
in which case letting them free their memory is not necessarily a bad
strategy.
> +
> /* Snapshot count of all CPUs */
> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> struct rcu_data *rdp = per_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data, cpu);
> - int _count = READ_ONCE(rdp->lazy_len);
> + int _count;
> +
> + if (!rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp))
> + continue;
If the CPU is offloaded, isn't ->lazy_len guaranteed to be zero?
Or can it contain garbage after a de-offloading operation?
> + _count = READ_ONCE(rdp->lazy_len);
>
> if (_count == 0)
> continue;
> +
> rcu_nocb_lock_irqsave(rdp, flags);
> WRITE_ONCE(rdp->lazy_len, 0);
> rcu_nocb_unlock_irqrestore(rdp, flags);
> @@ -1352,6 +1364,9 @@ lazy_rcu_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
> if (sc->nr_to_scan <= 0)
> break;
> }
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&rcu_state.barrier_mutex);
> +
> return count ? count : SHRINK_STOP;
> }
>
> --
> 2.34.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-22 23:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-22 19:44 [PATCH 0/4] rcu/nocb: Shrinker related boring fixes Frederic Weisbecker
2023-03-22 19:44 ` [PATCH 1/4] rcu/nocb: Protect lazy shrinker against concurrent (de-)offloading Frederic Weisbecker
2023-03-22 23:18 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2023-03-24 0:55 ` Joel Fernandes
2023-03-24 1:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-03-24 22:09 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2023-03-24 22:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-03-26 20:01 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2023-03-26 21:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-03-29 16:07 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2023-03-29 20:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-03-22 19:44 ` [PATCH 2/4] rcu/nocb: Fix shrinker race against callback enqueuer Frederic Weisbecker
2023-03-22 23:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-03-22 19:44 ` [PATCH 3/4] rcu/nocb: Recheck lazy callbacks under the ->nocb_lock from shrinker Frederic Weisbecker
2023-03-22 23:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-03-22 19:44 ` [PATCH 4/4] rcu/nocb: Make shrinker to iterate only NOCB CPUs Frederic Weisbecker
2023-03-24 0:41 ` Joel Fernandes
2023-03-29 16:01 [PATCH 0/4 v2] rcu/nocb: Shrinker related boring fixes Frederic Weisbecker
2023-03-29 16:02 ` [PATCH 1/4] rcu/nocb: Protect lazy shrinker against concurrent (de-)offloading Frederic Weisbecker
2023-03-29 20:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-03-29 21:18 ` Frederic Weisbecker
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=c614c542-f2b5-4b39-bbc4-ae5f0a125c81@paulmck-laptop \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=quic_neeraju@quicinc.com \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.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).