Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Jun 2020 07:14:23 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/9] rcu: Fixup noinstr warnings |
| |
On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 08:02:31AM +0200, Marco Elver wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 05:34, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 07:13:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 09:46:00AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > > > @@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ static noinstr void rcu_dynticks_eqs_ent > > > > > * next idle sojourn. > > > > > */ > > > > > rcu_dynticks_task_trace_enter(); // Before ->dynticks update! > > > > > - seq = atomic_add_return(RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR, &rdp->dynticks); > > > > > + seq = arch_atomic_add_return(RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR, &rdp->dynticks); > > > > > > > > To preserve KCSAN's ability to see this, there would be something like > > > > instrument_atomic_write(&rdp->dynticks, sizeof(rdp->dynticks)) prior > > > > to the instrumentation_end() invoked before rcu_dynticks_eqs_enter() > > > > in each of rcu_eqs_enter() and rcu_nmi_exit(), correct? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > // RCU is no longer watching. Better be in extended quiescent state! > > > > > WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_EQS_DEBUG) && > > > > > (seq & RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR)); > > > > > @@ -274,13 +274,13 @@ static noinstr void rcu_dynticks_eqs_exi > > > > > * and we also must force ordering with the next RCU read-side > > > > > * critical section. > > > > > */ > > > > > - seq = atomic_add_return(RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR, &rdp->dynticks); > > > > > + seq = arch_atomic_add_return(RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR, &rdp->dynticks); > > > > > > > > And same here, but after the instrumentation_begin() following > > > > rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit() in both rcu_eqs_exit() and rcu_nmi_enter(), > > > > correct? > > > > > > Yep. > > > > > > > > // RCU is now watching. Better not be in an extended quiescent state! > > > > > rcu_dynticks_task_trace_exit(); // After ->dynticks update! > > > > > WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_EQS_DEBUG) && > > > > > !(seq & RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR)); > > > > > if (seq & RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_MASK) { > > > > > - atomic_andnot(RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_MASK, &rdp->dynticks); > > > > > + arch_atomic_andnot(RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_MASK, &rdp->dynticks); > > > > > > > > This one is gone in -rcu. > > > > > > Good, because that would make things 'complicated' with the external > > > instrumentation call. And is actually the reason I didn't even attempt > > > it this time around. > > > > > > > > smp_mb__after_atomic(); /* _exit after clearing mask. */ > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > @@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ static __always_inline bool rcu_dynticks > > > > > { > > > > > struct rcu_data *rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data); > > > > > > > > > > - return !(atomic_read(&rdp->dynticks) & RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR); > > > > > + return !(arch_atomic_read(&rdp->dynticks) & RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR); > > > > > > The above is actually instrumented by KCSAN, due to arch_atomic_read() > > > being a READ_ONCE() and it now understanding volatile. > > > > > > > Also instrument_atomic_write(&rdp->dynticks, sizeof(rdp->dynticks)) as > > > > Right, this should instead be instrument_read(...). > > > > Though if KCSAN is unconditionally instrumenting volatile, how does > > this help? Or does KCSAN's instrumentation of volatile somehow avoid > > causing trouble? > > When used normally outside noinstr functions, because this is an > __always_inline function, it will be instrumented. Within noinstr > (which imply __no_kcsan) functions it should not be instrumented.
Got it, thank you!
This is going to require some serious commenting. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
> Thanks, > -- Marco > > > > > > follows: > > > > > > > > o rcu_nmi_exit(): After each following instrumentation_begin(). > > > > > > Yes > > > > > > > o In theory in rcu_irq_exit_preempt(), but as this generates code > > > > only in lockdep builds, it might not be worth worrying about. > > > > > > > > o Ditto for rcu_irq_exit_check_preempt(). > > > > > > > > o Ditto for __rcu_irq_enter_check_tick(). > > > > > > Not these, afaict they're all the above arch_atomic_read(), which is > > > instrumented due to volatile in these cases. > > > > > > > o rcu_nmi_enter(): After each following instrumentation_begin(). > > > > > > Yes > > > > > > > o __rcu_is_watching() is itself noinstr: > > > > > > > > o idtentry_enter_cond_rcu(): After each following > > > > instrumentation_begin(). > > > > > > > > o rcu_is_watching(): Either before or after the call to > > > > rcu_dynticks_curr_cpu_in_eqs(). > > > > > > Something like that yes. > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > /* > > > > > @@ -692,6 +692,7 @@ noinstr void rcu_nmi_exit(void) > > > > > { > > > > > struct rcu_data *rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data); > > > > > > > > > > + instrumentation_begin(); > > > > > /* > > > > > * Check for ->dynticks_nmi_nesting underflow and bad ->dynticks. > > > > > * (We are exiting an NMI handler, so RCU better be paying attention > > > > > @@ -705,7 +706,6 @@ noinstr void rcu_nmi_exit(void) > > > > > * leave it in non-RCU-idle state. > > > > > */ > > > > > if (rdp->dynticks_nmi_nesting != 1) { > > > > > - instrumentation_begin(); > > > > > trace_rcu_dyntick(TPS("--="), rdp->dynticks_nmi_nesting, rdp->dynticks_nmi_nesting - 2, > > > > > atomic_read(&rdp->dynticks)); > > > > > WRITE_ONCE(rdp->dynticks_nmi_nesting, /* No store tearing. */ > > > > > @@ -714,7 +714,6 @@ noinstr void rcu_nmi_exit(void) > > > > > return; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > - instrumentation_begin(); > > > > > /* This NMI interrupted an RCU-idle CPU, restore RCU-idleness. */ > > > > > trace_rcu_dyntick(TPS("Startirq"), rdp->dynticks_nmi_nesting, 0, atomic_read(&rdp->dynticks)); > > > > > WRITE_ONCE(rdp->dynticks_nmi_nesting, 0); /* Avoid store tearing. */ > > > > > > > > This one looks to be having no effect on instrumentation of atomics, but > > > > rather coalescing a pair of instrumentation_begin() into one. > > > > > > > > Do I understand correctly? > > > > > > Almost, it puts the WARN_ON_ONCE()s under instrumentation_begin() too, > > > and that makes a differnce, iirc it was the > > > rcu_dynticks_curr_cpu_in_eqs() call that stood out. But that could've > > > been before I switched it to arch_atomic_read(). In any case, I find > > > this form a lot clearer. > > > > Got it, thank you. > > > > Thanx, Paul
| |