LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
	Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
	Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: rcu/tree: Protect rcu_rdp_is_offloaded() invocations on RT
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 19:18:37 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210922021837.GV880162@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210921233627.GA100318@lothringen>

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 01:36:27AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 11:12:50PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Valentin reported warnings about suspicious RCU usage on RT kernels. Those
> > happen when offloading of RCU callbacks is enabled:
> > 
> >   WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> >   5.13.0-rt1 #20 Not tainted
> >   -----------------------------
> >   kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:69 Unsafe read of RCU_NOCB offloaded state!
> > 
> >   rcu_rdp_is_offloaded (kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:69 kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:58)
> >   rcu_core (kernel/rcu/tree.c:2332 kernel/rcu/tree.c:2398 kernel/rcu/tree.c:2777)
> >   rcu_cpu_kthread (./include/linux/bottom_half.h:32 kernel/rcu/tree.c:2876)
> > 
> > The reason is that rcu_rdp_is_offloaded() is invoked without one of the
> > required protections on RT enabled kernels because local_bh_disable() does
> > not disable preemption on RT.
> > 
> > Valentin proposed to add a local lock to the code in question, but that's
> > suboptimal in several aspects:
> > 
> >   1) local locks add extra code to !RT kernels for no value.
> > 
> >   2) All possible callsites have to audited and amended when affected
> >      possible at an outer function level due to lock nesting issues.
> > 
> >   3) As the local lock has to be taken at the outer functions it's required
> >      to release and reacquire them in the inner code sections which might
> >      voluntary schedule, e.g. rcu_do_batch().
> > 
> > Both callsites of rcu_rdp_is_offloaded() which trigger this check invoke
> > rcu_rdp_is_offloaded() in the variable declaration section right at the top
> > of the functions. But the actual usage of the result is either within a
> > section which provides the required protections or after such a section.
> > 
> > So the obvious solution is to move the invocation into the code sections
> > which provide the proper protections, which solves the problem for RT and
> > does not have any impact on !RT kernels.
> 
> You also need to consider rcu_segcblist_completely_offloaded(). There
> are two users:
> 
> 1) The first chunk using it in rcu_core() checks if there is a need to
> accelerate the callback and that can happen concurrently with nocb
> manipulations on the cblist. Concurrent (de-)offloading could mess
> up with the locking state but here is what we can do:
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index bce848e50512..3e56a1a4af03 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -2728,9 +2728,10 @@ static __latent_entropy void rcu_core(void)
>  
>  	/* No grace period and unregistered callbacks? */
>  	if (!rcu_gp_in_progress() &&
> -	    rcu_segcblist_is_enabled(&rdp->cblist) && do_batch) {
> +	    rcu_segcblist_is_enabled(&rdp->cblist)) {
>  		rcu_nocb_lock_irqsave(rdp, flags);
> -		if (!rcu_segcblist_restempty(&rdp->cblist, RCU_NEXT_READY_TAIL))
> +		if (!rcu_segcblist_completely_offloaded(&rdp->cblist) &&
> +		    !rcu_segcblist_restempty(&rdp->cblist, RCU_NEXT_READY_TAIL))
>  			rcu_accelerate_cbs_unlocked(rnp, rdp);
>  		rcu_nocb_unlock_irqrestore(rdp, flags);
>  	}
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> index 305cf6aeb408..64d615be3346 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> @@ -449,10 +449,9 @@ static void rcu_lockdep_assert_cblist_protected(struct rcu_data *rdp);
>  static void __init rcu_organize_nocb_kthreads(void);
>  #define rcu_nocb_lock_irqsave(rdp, flags)				\
>  do {									\
> +	local_irq_save(flags);						\
>  	if (!rcu_segcblist_is_offloaded(&(rdp)->cblist))		\
> -		local_irq_save(flags);					\
> -	else								\
> -		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&(rdp)->nocb_lock, (flags));	\
> +		raw_spin_lock(&(rdp)->nocb_lock);			\
>  } while (0)
>  #else /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU */
>  #define rcu_nocb_lock_irqsave(rdp, flags) local_irq_save(flags)
> 
> 
> Doing the local_irq_save() before checking that the segcblist is offloaded
> protect that state from being changed (provided we lock the local rdp). Then we
> can safely manipulate cblist, whether locked or unlocked.
> 
> 2) The actual call to rcu_do_batch(). If we are preempted between
> rcu_segcblist_completely_offloaded() and rcu_do_batch() with a deoffload in
> the middle, we miss the callback invocation. Invoking rcu_core by the end of
> deoffloading process should solve that.

Maybe invoke rcu_core() at that point?  My concern is that there might
be an extended time between the missed rcu_do_batch() and the end of
the deoffloading process.

> > Reported-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > ---
> >  kernel/rcu/tree.c |    7 ++++---
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -2278,13 +2278,13 @@ rcu_report_qs_rdp(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> >  {
> >  	unsigned long flags;
> >  	unsigned long mask;
> > -	bool needwake = false;
> > -	const bool offloaded = rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp);
> > +	bool offloaded, needwake = false;
> >  	struct rcu_node *rnp;
> >  
> >  	WARN_ON_ONCE(rdp->cpu != smp_processor_id());
> >  	rnp = rdp->mynode;
> >  	raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > +	offloaded = rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp);
> >  	if (rdp->cpu_no_qs.b.norm || rdp->gp_seq != rnp->gp_seq ||
> >  	    rdp->gpwrap) {
> 
> BTW Paul, if we happen to switch to non-NOCB (deoffload) some time after
> rcu_report_qs_rdp(), it's possible that the rcu_accelerate_cbs()
> that was supposed to be handled by nocb kthreads on behalf of
> rcu_core() -> rcu_report_qs_rdp() would not happen. At least not until
> we invoke rcu_core() again. Not sure how much harm that could cause.

Again, can we just invoke rcu_core() as soon as this is noticed?

> > @@ -2446,7 +2446,7 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_data
> >  	int div;
> >  	bool __maybe_unused empty;
> >  	unsigned long flags;
> > -	const bool offloaded = rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp);
> > +	bool offloaded;
> >  	struct rcu_head *rhp;
> >  	struct rcu_cblist rcl = RCU_CBLIST_INITIALIZER(rcl);
> >  	long bl, count = 0;
> > @@ -2472,6 +2472,7 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_data
> >  	rcu_nocb_lock(rdp);
> >  	WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu_is_offline(smp_processor_id()));
> >  	pending = rcu_segcblist_n_cbs(&rdp->cblist);
> > +	offloaded = rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp);
> 
> offloaded is also checked later in rcu_do_batch(), after irqrestore. In
> fact that should even become a rcu_segcblist_completely_offloaded() check
> there because if there are still pending callbacks while we are de-offloading,
> rcu_core() should be invoked. Hmm but that might be a remote rcu_core...
> 
> Anyway I guess we could live with some of those races with invoking rcu core on the
> target after deoffloading.
> 
> I guess I should cook a series to handle all these issues one by one, then
> probably we can live without a local_lock().

And thank you very much for looking this over!  Not simple stuff.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> >  	div = READ_ONCE(rcu_divisor);
> >  	div = div < 0 ? 7 : div > sizeof(long) * 8 - 2 ? sizeof(long) * 8 - 2 : div;
> >  	bl = max(rdp->blimit, pending >> div);

  reply	other threads:[~2021-09-22  2:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-11 20:13 [PATCH v3 0/4] rcu, arm64: PREEMPT_RT fixlets Valentin Schneider
2021-08-11 20:13 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] rcutorture: Don't disable softirqs with preemption disabled when PREEMPT_RT Valentin Schneider
2021-08-12 16:47   ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-08-17 12:13   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-08-17 13:17     ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-08-17 14:40       ` [PATCH] rcutorture: Avoid problematic critical section nesting on RT Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-08-18 22:46         ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-08-19 15:35           ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-08-19 15:39           ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-08-19 15:47             ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-08-19 18:20               ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-08-19 18:45                 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-08-20  4:11                 ` Scott Wood
2021-08-20  7:11                   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-08-20  7:42                   ` [PATCH v2] rcutorture: Avoid problematic critical section nesting on PREEMPT_RT Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-08-20 22:10                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-08-20  3:23         ` [PATCH] rcutorture: Avoid problematic critical section nesting on RT Scott Wood
2021-08-20  6:54           ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-08-11 20:13 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] sched: Introduce migratable() Valentin Schneider
2021-08-17 14:43   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-08-22 17:31     ` Valentin Schneider
2021-08-17 17:09   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-08-17 19:30     ` Phil Auld
2021-08-22 18:14     ` Valentin Schneider
2022-01-26 16:56       ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2022-01-26 18:10         ` Valentin Schneider
2022-01-27 10:07           ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2022-01-27 18:23             ` Valentin Schneider
2022-01-27 19:27         ` Valentin Schneider
2022-02-04  9:24           ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-08-11 20:13 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] rcu/nocb: Protect NOCB state via local_lock() under PREEMPT_RT Valentin Schneider
2021-08-13  0:20   ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-08-13 18:48     ` Valentin Schneider
2021-08-24 13:00     ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-08-17 15:36   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-08-22 18:15     ` Valentin Schneider
2021-09-21 14:05   ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-09-21 21:12     ` rcu/tree: Protect rcu_rdp_is_offloaded() invocations on RT Thomas Gleixner
2021-09-21 23:36       ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-09-22  2:18         ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2021-09-22 11:31           ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-09-21 23:45       ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-09-22  6:32         ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-09-22 11:10           ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-09-22 11:27             ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-09-22 11:38               ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-09-22 13:02                 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-09-23 10:02                   ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-09-30  9:00       ` Valentin Schneider
2021-09-30 10:53         ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-09-30 13:22           ` Valentin Schneider
2021-08-11 20:13 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] arm64: mm: Make arch_faults_on_old_pte() check for migratability Valentin Schneider

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=20210922021837.GV880162@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1 \
    --to=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=steven.price@arm.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=vincenzo.frascino@arm.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: rcu/tree: Protect rcu_rdp_is_offloaded() invocations on RT' \
    /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).