lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] rcu: Equip sleepable RCU with lockdep dependency graph checks
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 10:05:22AM -0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 03:29:49AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 10:59:54PM -0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > Although all flavors of RCU are annotated correctly with lockdep as
> > > recursive read locks, their 'check' parameter of lock_acquire() is
> > > unset. It means that RCU read locks are not added into the lockdep
> > > dependency graph therefore deadlock detection based on dependency graph
> > > won't catch deadlock caused by RCU. This is fine for "non-sleepable" RCU
> > > flavors since wait-context detection and other context based detection
> > > can catch these deadlocks. However for sleepable RCU, this is limited.
> > >
> > > Actually we can detect the deadlocks caused by SRCU by 1) making
> > > srcu_read_lock() a 'check'ed recursive read lock and 2) making
> > > synchronize_srcu() a empty write lock critical section. Even better,
> > > with the newly introduced lock_sync(), we can avoid false positives
> > > about irq-unsafe/safe. So do it.
> > >
> > > Note that NMI safe SRCU read side critical sections are currently not
> > > annonated, since step-by-step approach can help us deal with
> > > false-positives. These may be annotated in the future.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> >
> > Nice, thank you!!!
> >
> > Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> >
> > Or if you would prefer that I take the series through -rcu, please just
> > let me know.
>
> I prefer that the first two patches go through your tree, because it
> reduces the synchronization among locking, rcu and KVM trees to the
> synchronization betwen rcu and KVM trees.

Very well, I have queued and pushed these with the usual wordsmithing,
thank you!

On the possibility of annotating __srcu_read_lock_nmisafe() and
__srcu_read_unlock_nmisafe(), are those lockdep annotations themselves
NMI-safe?

> For patch #3, since it's not really ready yet, so I don't know, but I
> guess when it's finished, probably better go through -rcu.

Please let me know when it is ready!

Thanx, Paul

> Regards,
> Boqun
>
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/srcu.h | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c | 2 ++
> > > kernel/rcu/srcutree.c | 2 ++
> > > 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/srcu.h b/include/linux/srcu.h
> > > index 9b9d0bbf1d3c..a1595f8c5155 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/srcu.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/srcu.h
> > > @@ -102,6 +102,21 @@ static inline int srcu_read_lock_held(const struct srcu_struct *ssp)
> > > return lock_is_held(&ssp->dep_map);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static inline void srcu_lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *map)
> > > +{
> > > + lock_map_acquire_read(map);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline void srcu_lock_release(struct lockdep_map *map)
> > > +{
> > > + lock_map_release(map);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline void srcu_lock_sync(struct lockdep_map *map)
> > > +{
> > > + lock_map_sync(map);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > #else /* #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC */
> > >
> > > static inline int srcu_read_lock_held(const struct srcu_struct *ssp)
> > > @@ -109,6 +124,10 @@ static inline int srcu_read_lock_held(const struct srcu_struct *ssp)
> > > return 1;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +#define srcu_lock_acquire(m) do { } while (0)
> > > +#define srcu_lock_release(m) do { } while (0)
> > > +#define srcu_lock_sync(m) do { } while (0)
> > > +
> > > #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC */
> > >
> > > #define SRCU_NMI_UNKNOWN 0x0
> > > @@ -182,7 +201,7 @@ static inline int srcu_read_lock(struct srcu_struct *ssp) __acquires(ssp)
> > >
> > > srcu_check_nmi_safety(ssp, false);
> > > retval = __srcu_read_lock(ssp);
> > > - rcu_lock_acquire(&(ssp)->dep_map);
> > > + srcu_lock_acquire(&(ssp)->dep_map);
> > > return retval;
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -226,7 +245,7 @@ static inline void srcu_read_unlock(struct srcu_struct *ssp, int idx)
> > > {
> > > WARN_ON_ONCE(idx & ~0x1);
> > > srcu_check_nmi_safety(ssp, false);
> > > - rcu_lock_release(&(ssp)->dep_map);
> > > + srcu_lock_release(&(ssp)->dep_map);
> > > __srcu_read_unlock(ssp, idx);
> > > }
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c
> > > index b12fb0cec44d..336af24e0fe3 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c
> > > @@ -197,6 +197,8 @@ void synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
> > > {
> > > struct rcu_synchronize rs;
> > >
> > > + srcu_lock_sync(&ssp->dep_map);
> > > +
> > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(lockdep_is_held(ssp) ||
> > > lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map) ||
> > > lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) ||
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> > > index ca4b5dcec675..408088c73e0e 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> > > @@ -1267,6 +1267,8 @@ static void __synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *ssp, bool do_norm)
> > > {
> > > struct rcu_synchronize rcu;
> > >
> > > + srcu_lock_sync(&ssp->dep_map);
> > > +
> > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(lockdep_is_held(ssp) ||
> > > lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map) ||
> > > lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) ||
> > > --
> > > 2.38.1
> > >

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-26 23:41    [W:0.056 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site