Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Mar 2020 10:20:26 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC v2 tip/core/rcu 01/22] sched/core: Add function to sample state of locked-down task |
| |
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:52:55PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 08:48:22AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > [..] > > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h > > > > index 44edd0a..43991a4 100644 > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h > > > > @@ -455,6 +455,8 @@ static void rcu_bind_gp_kthread(void); > > > > static bool rcu_nohz_full_cpu(void); > > > > static void rcu_dynticks_task_enter(void); > > > > static void rcu_dynticks_task_exit(void); > > > > +static void rcu_dynticks_task_trace_enter(void); > > > > +static void rcu_dynticks_task_trace_exit(void); > > > > > > > > /* Forward declarations for tree_stall.h */ > > > > static void record_gp_stall_check_time(void); > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > > > > index 9355536..f4a344e 100644 > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > > > > @@ -2553,3 +2553,21 @@ static void rcu_dynticks_task_exit(void) > > > > WRITE_ONCE(current->rcu_tasks_idle_cpu, -1); > > > > #endif /* #if defined(CONFIG_TASKS_RCU) && defined(CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL) */ > > > > } > > > > + > > > > +/* Turn on heavyweight RCU tasks trace readers on idle/user entry. */ > > > > +static void rcu_dynticks_task_trace_enter(void) > > > > +{ > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU_TRACE > > > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TASKS_TRACE_RCU_READ_MB)) > > > > + current->trc_reader_special.b.need_mb = true; > > > > > > If this is every called from middle of a reader section (that is we > > > transition from IPI-mode to using heavier reader-sections), then is a memory > > > barrier needed here just to protect the reader section that already started? > > > > That memory barrier is provided by the memory ordering in the callers > > of rcu_dynticks_task_trace_enter() and rcu_dynticks_task_trace_exit(), > > namely, those callers' atomic_add_return() invocations. These barriers > > pair with the pair of smp_rmb() calls in rcu_dynticks_zero_in_eqs(), > > which is in turn invoked from the function formerly known as > > trc_inspect_reader_notrunning(), AKA trc_inspect_reader(). > > > > This same pair of smp_rmb() calls also pair with the conditional smp_mb() > > calls in rcu_read_lock_trace() and rcu_read_unlock_trace(). > > > > In your scenario, the calls in rcu_read_lock_trace() and > > rcu_read_unlock_trace() wouldn't happen, but in that case the ordering > > from atomic_add_return() would suffice. > > > > Does that work? Or is there an ordering bug in there somewhere? > > Thanks for explaining. Could the following scenario cause a problem? > > If we consider the litmus test: > > { > int x = 1; > int *y = &x; > int z = 1; > } > > P0(int *x, int *z, int **y) > { > int *r0; > int r1; > > dynticks_eqs_trace_enter(); > > rcu_read_lock(); > r0 = rcu_dereference(*y); > > dynticks_eqs_trace_exit(); // cut-off reader's mb wings :)
RCU Tasks Trace currently assumes that a reader will not start within idle and end outside of idle. However, keep in mind that eqs exit implies a full memory barrier and changes the ->dynticks counter. The call to rcu_dynticks_task_trace_exit() is not standalone. Instead, the atomic_add_return() immediately preceding that call is critically important. And ditto for rcu_dynticks_task_trace_enter() and the atomic_add_return() immediately following it.
The overall effect is similar to that of sequence locks.
> r1 = READ_ONCE(*r0); // Reordering of this beyond the unlock() is bad. > rcu_read_unlock(); > } > > P1(int *x, int *z, int **y) > { > rcu_assign_pointer(*y, z); > synchronize_rcu(); > WRITE_ONCE(*x, 0); > } > > exists (0:r0=x /\ 0:r1=0) > > Then the following situation can happen? > > READER UPDATER > > y = &z; > > eqs_enter(); // full-mb > > rcu_read_lock(); // full-mb > // r0 = x; > // GP-start > // ..zero_in_eqs() notices eqs, no IPI > eqs_exit(); // full-mb > > // actual r1 = *x but will reorder > > rcu_read_unlock(); // no-mb > // GP-finish as notices nesting = 0 > x = 0;
Followed by an smp_rmb() followed the second read of ->dynticks, which will see a non-zero bottom bit for ->dynticks, and thus return false. This in turn will cause the possible zero nesting counter to be ignored.
> // reordered r1 = *x = 0; > > > Basically r0=x /\ r1=0 happened because r1=0. Or did I miss something that > prevents it?
Yes, the change in value of ->dynticks and the full ordering associated with the atomic_add_return() that makes this change.
Thanx, Paul
> thanks, > > - Joel > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > - Joel > > > > > > > > > > +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU_TRACE */ > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +/* Turn off heavyweight RCU tasks trace readers on idle/user exit. */ > > > > +static void rcu_dynticks_task_trace_exit(void) > > > > +{ > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU_TRACE > > > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TASKS_TRACE_RCU_READ_MB)) > > > > + current->trc_reader_special.b.need_mb = false; > > > > +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU_TRACE */ > > > > +}
| |