lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 rcu 04/18] rcu: Weaken ->dynticks accesses and updates
On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 01:41:41PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Jul 29, 2021, at 11:57 AM, paulmck paulmck@kernel.org wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 10:41:18AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >> ----- 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.
> >
> > In general, true enough.
> >
> > But in this particular case, a WARN would have deterministically triggered
> > the very next time that this CPU found its way either to the idle loop
> > or to nohz_full usermode execution.
> >
> >> > 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.
> >
> > Interrupts are still disabled at this point in the onlining process,
> > my _irqsave() locks notwithstanding.
> >
> > You are right about NMI handlers, but there would be much more damage
> > from an early NMI handler than mere RCU issues. And this can be handled
> > as described in the next paragraph.
> >
> > Now, there are architectures (including x86) that need RCU readers
> > before notify_cpu_starting() time (which is where rcu_cpu_starting()
> > is invoked by default, and those architectures can (and do) simply
> > place a call to rcu_cpu_starting() at an earlier appropriate point in
> > the architecture-specific CPU-bringup code. And this is in fact the
> > reason for the ->cpu_started check at the beginning of rcu_cpu_starting().
> > So an architecture using NMIs early in the CPU-bringup code should
> > invoke rcu_cpu_starting() before enabling NMIs.
> >
> > So why not just be safe and mark the CPU online early in the process?
> >
> > Because that could result in unbounded grace periods and strange
> > deadlocks. These deadlocks were broken earlier by code that assumed that
> > a CPU could not possibly take more than one jiffy to come online, but that
> > assumption is clearly broken on todays systems, even the bare-metal ones.
> >
> > In theory, I could change the raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node() to
> > raw_spin_lock_rcu_node(), rely on the lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled()
> > in the matching raw_spin_unlock_rcu_node(), and ditch the "flags"
> > local variable, but rcu_report_qs_rnp() needs that "flags" argument.
> >
> > OK, I guess one approach is to get the "flags" value from local_save_flags()
> > and get rid of the _irqsave and _irq restore. Assuming lockdep is
> > functional that early in CPU bringup.
> >
> > But would that really be better than status quo?
>
> I'm OK with your explanation about the fact that interrupts and NMIs scenarios
> are correctly handled, so moving this call from prepare_cpu to cpu_starting
> is fine with me.

I will add a "Link:" to this conversation.

May I also add your "Acked-by" or similar?

Thanx, Paul

> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu
>
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> >> 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
>
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-07-29 20:06    [W:0.102 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site