rcu.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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
> 

  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).