Thread (12 messages) 12 messages, 4 authors, 2021-07-29

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
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help