Re: [PATCH 2/3] rcu/nocb: Check for migratability rather than pure preemptability
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Date: 2021-07-28 22:01:42
Also in:
linux-rt-users, lkml
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 08:34:14PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
On 28/07/21 01:08, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:quoted
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:51:17PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:quoted
Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <redacted> --- kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h index ad0156b86937..6c3c4100da83 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h@@ -70,8 +70,7 @@ static bool rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(struct rcu_data *rdp) !(lockdep_is_held(&rcu_state.barrier_mutex) || (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU) && lockdep_is_cpus_held()) || rcu_lockdep_is_held_nocb(rdp) || - (rdp == this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data) && - !(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT) && preemptible())) || + (rdp == this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data) && is_pcpu_safe()) ||I fear that won't work. We really need any caller of rcu_rdp_is_offloaded() on the local rdp to have preemption disabled and not just migration disabled, because we must protect against concurrent offloaded state changes. The offloaded state is changed by a workqueue that executes on the target rdp. Here is a practical example where it matters: CPU 0 ----- // =======> task rcuc running rcu_core { rcu_nocb_lock_irqsave(rdp, flags) { if (!rcu_segcblist_is_offloaded(rdp->cblist)) { // is not offloaded right now, so it's going // to just disable IRQs. Oh no wait: // preemption // ========> workqueue running rcu_nocb_rdp_offload(); // ========> task rcuc resume local_irq_disable(); } } .... rcu_nocb_unlock_irqrestore(rdp, flags) { if (rcu_segcblist_is_offloaded(rdp->cblist)) { // is offloaded right now so: raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(rdp, flags); And that will explode because that's an impaired unlock on nocb_lock.Harumph, that doesn't look good, thanks for pointing this out. AFAICT PREEMPT_RT doesn't actually require to disable softirqs here (since it forces RCU callbacks on the RCU kthreads), but disabled softirqs seem to be a requirement for much of the underlying functions and even some of the callbacks (delayed_put_task_struct() ~> vfree() pays close attention to in_interrupt() for instance). Now, if the offloaded state was (properly) protected by a local_lock, do you reckon we could then keep preemption enabled?
I guess we could take such a local lock on the update side (rcu_nocb_rdp_offload) and then take it on rcuc kthread/softirqs and maybe other places. But we must make sure that rcu_core() is preempt-safe from a general perspective in the first place. From a quick glance I can't find obvious issues...yet. Paul maybe you can see something?
From a naive outsider PoV, rdp->nocb_lock looks like a decent candidate, but it's a *raw* spinlock (I can't tell right now whether changing this is a horrible idea or not), and then there's
Yeah that's not possible, nocb_lock is too low level and has to be called with IRQs disabled. So if we take that local_lock solution, we need a new lock. Thanks. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel