LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: paulmck <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	kernel-team <kernel-team@fb.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, fweisbec <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	"Joel Fernandes, Google" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 rcu 04/18] rcu: Weaken ->dynticks accesses and updates
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:41:18 -0400 (EDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1929727713.10248.1627569678176.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210728202802.GL4397@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>

----- On Jul 28, 2021, at 4:28 PM, paulmck paulmck@kernel.org wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 04:03:02PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> ----- On Jul 28, 2021, at 3:45 PM, paulmck paulmck@kernel.org wrote:
>> [...]
>> > 
>> > And how about like this?
>> > 
>> >						Thanx, Paul
>> > 
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 
>> > commit cb8914dcc6443cca15ce48d937a93c0dfdb114d3
>> > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
>> > Date:   Wed Jul 28 12:38:42 2021 -0700
>> > 
>> >    rcu: Move rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() to rcu_cpu_starting()
>> >    
>> >    The purpose of rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() is to adjust the ->dynticks
>> >    counter of an incoming CPU if required.  It is currently is invoked
>> 
>> "is currently is" -> "is currently"
> 
> Good catch, fixed!
> 
>> >    from rcutree_prepare_cpu(), which runs before the incoming CPU is
>> >    running, and thus on some other CPU.  This makes the per-CPU accesses in
>> >    rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() iffy at best, and it all "works" only because
>> >    the running CPU cannot possibly be in dyntick-idle mode, which means
>> >    that rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() never has any effect.  One could argue
>> >    that this means that rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() is unnecessary, however,
>> >    removing it makes the CPU-online process vulnerable to slight changes
>> >    in the CPU-offline process.
>> 
>> Why favor moving this from the prepare_cpu to the cpu_starting hotplug step,
>> rather than using the target cpu's rdp from rcutree_prepare_cpu ? Maybe there
>> was a good reason for having this very early in the prepare_cpu step ?
> 
> Some years back, there was a good reason. This reason was that
> rcutree_prepare_cpu() marked the CPU as being online from an RCU
> viewpoint.  But now rcu_cpu_starting() is the one that marks the CPU as
> being online, so the ->dynticks check can be deferred to this function.
> 
>> Also, the commit message refers to this bug as having no effect because the
>> running CPU cannot possibly be in dyntick-idle mode. I understand that calling
>> this function was indeed effect-less, but then why is it OK for the CPU coming
>> online to skip this call in the first place ? This commit message hints at
>> "slight changes in the CPU-offline process" which could break it, but therer is
>> no explanation of what makes this not an actual bug fix.
> 
> Because rcutorture would not have suffered in silence had this
> situation ever arisen.

Testing can usually prove the presence of a bug, but it's rather tricky to prove
the absence of bug.

> 
> I have updated the commit log to answer these questions as shown
> below.  Thoughts?

I'm still concerned about one scenario wrt moving rcu_dynticks_eqs_online()
from rcutree_prepare_cpu to rcu_cpu_starting. What happens if an interrupt
handler, or a NMI handler, nests early over the CPU-online startup code ?
AFAIU, this interrupt handler could contain RCU read-side critical sections,
but if the eqs state does not show the CPU as "online", I wonder whether it
will work as expected.

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
>							Thanx, Paul
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> commit 516c8c4cc6fce62539f7e0182739812db4591c1d
> Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> Date:   Wed Jul 28 12:38:42 2021 -0700
> 
>    rcu: Move rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() to rcu_cpu_starting()
>    
>    The purpose of rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() is to adjust the ->dynticks
>    counter of an incoming CPU when required.  It is currently invoked
>    from rcutree_prepare_cpu(), which runs before the incoming CPU is
>    running, and thus on some other CPU.  This makes the per-CPU accesses in
>    rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() iffy at best, and it all "works" only because
>    the running CPU cannot possibly be in dyntick-idle mode, which means
>    that rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() never has any effect.
>    
>    It is currently OK for rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() to have no effect, but
>    only because the CPU-offline process just happens to leave ->dynticks in
>    the correct state.  After all, if ->dynticks were in the wrong state on a
>    just-onlined CPU, rcutorture would complain bitterly the next time that
>    CPU went idle, at least in kernels built with CONFIG_RCU_EQS_DEBUG=y,
>    for example, those built by rcutorture scenario TREE04.  One could
>    argue that this means that rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() is unnecessary,
>    however, removing it would make the CPU-online process vulnerable to
>    slight changes in the CPU-offline process.
>    
>    One could also ask why it is safe to move the rcu_dynticks_eqs_online()
>    call so late in the CPU-online process.  Indeed, there was a time when it
>    would not have been safe, which does much to explain its current location.
>    However, the marking of a CPU as online from an RCU perspective has long
>    since moved from rcutree_prepare_cpu() to rcu_cpu_starting(), and all
>    that is required is that ->dynticks be set correctly by the time that
>    the CPU is marked as online from an RCU perspective.  After all, the RCU
>    grace-period kthread does not check to see if offline CPUs are also idle.
>    (In case you were curious, this is one reason why there is quiescent-state
>    reporting as part of the offlining process.)
>    
>    This commit therefore moves the call to rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() from
>    rcutree_prepare_cpu() to rcu_cpu_starting(), this latter being guaranteed
>    to be running on the incoming CPU.  The call to this function must of
>    course be placed before this rcu_cpu_starting() announces this CPU's
>    presence to RCU.
>    
>    Reported-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
>    Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 0172a5fd6d8de..aa00babdaf544 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -4129,7 +4129,6 @@ int rcutree_prepare_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> 	rdp->n_force_qs_snap = READ_ONCE(rcu_state.n_force_qs);
> 	rdp->blimit = blimit;
> 	rdp->dynticks_nesting = 1;	/* CPU not up, no tearing. */
> -	rcu_dynticks_eqs_online();
> 	raw_spin_unlock_rcu_node(rnp);		/* irqs remain disabled. */
> 
> 	/*
> @@ -4249,6 +4248,7 @@ void rcu_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu)
> 	mask = rdp->grpmask;
> 	WRITE_ONCE(rnp->ofl_seq, rnp->ofl_seq + 1);
> 	WARN_ON_ONCE(!(rnp->ofl_seq & 0x1));
> +	rcu_dynticks_eqs_online();
> 	smp_mb(); // Pair with rcu_gp_cleanup()'s ->ofl_seq barrier().
> 	raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
>  	WRITE_ONCE(rnp->qsmaskinitnext, rnp->qsmaskinitnext | mask);

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com

  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-29 14:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-21 20:20 [PATCH rcu 0/18] Miscellaneous fixes for v5.15 Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-21 20:21 ` [PATCH rcu 01/18] rcu: Fix to include first blocked task in stall warning Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-21 20:21 ` [PATCH rcu 02/18] rcu: Fix stall-warning deadlock due to non-release of rcu_node ->lock Paul E. McKenney
2021-08-03 14:24   ` Qais Yousef
2021-08-03 15:52     ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-08-03 16:12       ` Qais Yousef
2021-08-03 16:28         ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-08-03 16:33           ` Qais Yousef
2021-08-04 13:50           ` Qais Yousef
2021-08-04 22:33             ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-08-06  9:56               ` Qais Yousef
2021-08-06  9:57   ` Qais Yousef
2021-08-06 11:43     ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-08-06 12:33       ` Qais Yousef
2021-07-21 20:21 ` [PATCH rcu 03/18] rcu: Remove special bit at the bottom of the ->dynticks counter Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-21 20:21 ` [PATCH rcu 04/18] rcu: Weaken ->dynticks accesses and updates Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-21 20:41   ` Linus Torvalds
2021-07-21 21:25     ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-28 17:37   ` [PATCH v2 " Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-28 17:58     ` Linus Torvalds
2021-07-28 18:12       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-07-28 18:32         ` Linus Torvalds
2021-07-28 18:39           ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-07-28 18:46         ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-28 18:46       ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-28 18:57         ` Linus Torvalds
2021-07-28 18:23     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-07-28 18:58       ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-28 19:45         ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-28 20:03           ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-07-28 20:28             ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-29 14:41               ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2021-07-29 15:57                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-29 17:41                   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-07-29 18:05                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-29 18:42                       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-07-28 20:37     ` Josh Triplett
2021-07-28 20:47       ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-28 22:23         ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-07-29  1:07           ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-29  7:58   ` [PATCH " Boqun Feng
2021-07-29 10:53     ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-07-30  5:56       ` Boqun Feng
2021-07-30 17:18         ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-21 20:21 ` [PATCH rcu 05/18] rcu: Mark accesses to ->rcu_read_lock_nesting Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-21 20:21 ` [PATCH rcu 06/18] rculist: Unify documentation about missing list_empty_rcu() Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-21 20:21 ` [PATCH rcu 07/18] rcu/tree: Handle VM stoppage in stall detection Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-21 20:21 ` [PATCH rcu 08/18] rcu: Do not disable GP stall detection in rcu_cpu_stall_reset() Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-21 20:21 ` [PATCH rcu 09/18] rcu: Start timing stall repetitions after warning complete Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-21 20:21 ` [PATCH rcu 10/18] srcutiny: Mark read-side data races Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-29  8:23   ` Boqun Feng
2021-07-29 13:36     ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-21 20:21 ` [PATCH rcu 11/18] rcu: Mark lockless ->qsmask read in rcu_check_boost_fail() Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-29  8:54   ` Boqun Feng
2021-07-29 14:03     ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-30  2:28       ` Boqun Feng
2021-07-30  3:26         ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-21 20:21 ` [PATCH rcu 12/18] rcu: Make rcu_gp_init() and rcu_gp_fqs_loop noinline to conserve stack Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-21 20:21 ` [PATCH rcu 13/18] rcu: Remove trailing spaces and tabs Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-21 20:21 ` [PATCH rcu 14/18] rcu: Mark accesses in tree_stall.h Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-21 20:21 ` [PATCH rcu 15/18] rcu: Remove useless "ret" update in rcu_gp_fqs_loop() Paul E. McKenney
2021-08-03 16:48   ` Joe Perches
2021-08-03 17:10     ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-21 20:21 ` [PATCH rcu 16/18] rcu: Use per_cpu_ptr to get the pointer of per_cpu variable Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-21 20:21 ` [PATCH rcu 17/18] rcu: Explain why rcu_all_qs() is a stub in preemptible TREE RCU Paul E. McKenney
2021-07-21 20:21 ` [PATCH rcu 18/18] rcu: Print human-readable message for schedule() in RCU reader 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=1929727713.10248.1627569678176.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com \
    --to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v2 rcu 04/18] rcu: Weaken ->dynticks accesses and updates' \
    /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

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).