Re: [PATCH] rcutorture: Avoid problematic critical section nesting on RT
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Date: 2021-08-19 15:47:14
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, lkml, rcu
On 2021-08-19 17:39:29 [+0200], To Paul E. McKenney wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
up with following which I can explain:diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c index 40ef5417d9545..5c8b31b7eff03 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c@@ -1432,28 +1432,34 @@ static void rcutorture_one_extend(int *readstate, int newstate, /* First, put new protection in place to avoid critical-section gap. */ if (statesnew & RCUTORTURE_RDR_BH) local_bh_disable(); + if (statesnew & RCUTORTURE_RDR_RBH) + rcu_read_lock_bh(); if (statesnew & RCUTORTURE_RDR_IRQ) local_irq_disable(); if (statesnew & RCUTORTURE_RDR_PREEMPT) preempt_disable(); - if (statesnew & RCUTORTURE_RDR_RBH) - rcu_read_lock_bh(); if (statesnew & RCUTORTURE_RDR_SCHED) rcu_read_lock_sched(); if (statesnew & RCUTORTURE_RDR_RCU) idxnew = cur_ops->readlock() << RCUTORTURE_RDR_SHIFT;
So the ordering in the enable and disable part regarding BH is important. First BH, then preemption or IRQ.
- /* Next, remove old protection, irq first due to bh conflict. */
+ /*
+ * Next, remove old protection, in decreasing order of strength
+ * to avoid unlock paths that aren't safe in the stronger
+ * context. Namely: BH can not be enabled with disabled interrupts.
+ * Additionally PREEMPT_RT requires that BH is enabled in preemptible
+ * context.
+ */
if (statesold & RCUTORTURE_RDR_IRQ)
local_irq_enable();
- if (statesold & RCUTORTURE_RDR_BH)
- local_bh_enable();
if (statesold & RCUTORTURE_RDR_PREEMPT)
preempt_enable();
- if (statesold & RCUTORTURE_RDR_RBH)
- rcu_read_unlock_bh();
if (statesold & RCUTORTURE_RDR_SCHED)
rcu_read_unlock_sched();
+ if (statesold & RCUTORTURE_RDR_BH)
+ local_bh_enable();
+ if (statesold & RCUTORTURE_RDR_RBH)
+ rcu_read_unlock_bh();
if (statesold & RCUTORTURE_RDR_RCU) {
bool lockit = !statesnew && !(torture_random(trsp) & 0xffff);The same in the unlock part so that BH is unlocked in preemptible context. Now if you need bh lock/unlock in atomic context (either with disabled IRQs or preemption) then I would dig out the atomic-bh part again and make !RT only without the preempt_disable() section around about which one you did complain.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -1496,6 +1502,9 @@ rcutorture_extend_mask(int oldmask, struct torture_random_state *trsp) int mask = rcutorture_extend_mask_max(); unsigned long randmask1 = torture_random(trsp) >> 8; unsigned long randmask2 = randmask1 >> 3; + unsigned long preempts = RCUTORTURE_RDR_PREEMPT | RCUTORTURE_RDR_SCHED; + unsigned long preempts_irq = preempts | RCUTORTURE_RDR_IRQ; + unsigned long bhs = RCUTORTURE_RDR_BH | RCUTORTURE_RDR_RBH; WARN_ON_ONCE(mask >> RCUTORTURE_RDR_SHIFT); /* Mostly only one bit (need preemption!), sometimes lots of bits. */@@ -1503,11 +1512,37 @@ rcutorture_extend_mask(int oldmask, struct torture_random_state *trsp) mask = mask & randmask2; else mask = mask & (1 << (randmask2 % RCUTORTURE_RDR_NBITS)); - /* Can't enable bh w/irq disabled. */ - if ((mask & RCUTORTURE_RDR_IRQ) && - ((!(mask & RCUTORTURE_RDR_BH) && (oldmask & RCUTORTURE_RDR_BH)) || - (!(mask & RCUTORTURE_RDR_RBH) && (oldmask & RCUTORTURE_RDR_RBH)))) - mask |= RCUTORTURE_RDR_BH | RCUTORTURE_RDR_RBH; + + /* + * Can't enable bh w/irq disabled. + */ + if (mask & RCUTORTURE_RDR_IRQ) + mask |= oldmask & bhs; + + /* + * Ideally these sequences would be detected in debug builds + * (regardless of RT), but until then don't stop testing + * them on non-RT. + */ + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)) { + /* + * Can't release the outermost rcu lock in an irq disabled + * section without preemption also being disabled, if irqs + * had ever been enabled during this RCU critical section + * (could leak a special flag and delay reporting the qs). + */ + if ((oldmask & RCUTORTURE_RDR_RCU) && + (mask & RCUTORTURE_RDR_IRQ) && + !(mask & preempts)) + mask |= RCUTORTURE_RDR_RCU;
This piece above, I don't understand. I had it running for a while and it didn't explode. Let me try TREE01 for 30min without that piece.
+ /* Can't modify bh in atomic context */ + if (oldmask & preempts_irq) + mask &= ~bhs; + if ((oldmask | mask) & preempts_irq) + mask |= oldmask & bhs;
And this is needed because we can't lock/unlock bh while atomic.
+ } + return mask ?: RCUTORTURE_RDR_RCU; }
Sebastian