From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] rcu/tree: Try to invoke_rcu_core() if in_irq() during unlock
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 08:47:55 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190821154755.GH28441@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190821152638.GF147977@google.com>
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:26:38AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 10:56:17AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 10:38:41AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 08:41:43AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 07:33:14AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 05:57:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 07:29:27PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:46:23PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:41:43PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 06:21:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, your commit log's point #2 is "in_irq() implies in_interrupt()
> > > > > > > > > > > > which implies raising softirq will not do any wake ups." This mention
> > > > > > > > > > > > of softirq seems a bit odd, given that we are going to wake up a rcuc
> > > > > > > > > > > > kthread. Of course, this did nothing to quell my suspicions. ;-)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I should delete this #2 from the changelog since it is not very relevant
> > > > > > > > > > > (I feel now). My point with #2 was that even if were to raise a softirq
> > > > > > > > > > > (which we are not), a scheduler wakeup of ksoftirqd is impossible in this
> > > > > > > > > > > path anyway since in_irq() implies in_interrupt().
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Please! Could you also add a first-principles explanation of why
> > > > > > > > > > the added condition is immune from scheduler deadlocks?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sure I can add an example in the change log, however I was thinking of this
> > > > > > > > > example which you mentioned:
> > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190627173831.GW26519@linux.ibm.com/
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > previous_reader()
> > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > > > > > do_something(); /* Preemption happened here. */
> > > > > > > > > local_irq_disable(); /* Cannot be the scheduler! */
> > > > > > > > > do_something_else();
> > > > > > > > > rcu_read_unlock(); /* Must defer QS, task still queued. */
> > > > > > > > > do_some_other_thing();
> > > > > > > > > local_irq_enable();
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > current_reader() /* QS from previous_reader() is still deferred. */
> > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > local_irq_disable(); /* Might be the scheduler. */
> > > > > > > > > do_whatever();
> > > > > > > > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > > > > > do_whatever_else();
> > > > > > > > > rcu_read_unlock(); /* Must still defer reporting QS. */
> > > > > > > > > do_whatever_comes_to_mind();
> > > > > > > > > local_irq_enable();
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > One modification of the example could be, previous_reader() could also do:
> > > > > > > > > previous_reader()
> > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > > > > > do_something_that_takes_really_long(); /* causes need_qs in
> > > > > > > > > the unlock_special_union to be set */
> > > > > > > > > local_irq_disable(); /* Cannot be the scheduler! */
> > > > > > > > > do_something_else();
> > > > > > > > > rcu_read_unlock(); /* Must defer QS, task still queued. */
> > > > > > > > > do_some_other_thing();
> > > > > > > > > local_irq_enable();
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The point you were making in that thread being, current_reader() ->
> > > > > > > > rcu_read_unlock() -> rcu_read_unlock_special() would not do any wakeups
> > > > > > > > because previous_reader() sets the deferred_qs bit.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anyway, I will add all of this into the changelog.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Examples are good, but what makes it so that there are no examples of
> > > > > > > its being unsafe?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And a few questions along the way, some quick quiz, some more serious.
> > > > > > > Would it be safe if it checked in_interrupt() instead of in_irq()?
> > > > > > > If not, should the in_interrupt() in the "if" condition preceding the
> > > > > > > added "else if" be changed to in_irq()? Would it make sense to add an
> > > > > > > "|| !irqs_were_disabled" do your new "else if" condition? Would the
> > > > > > > body of the "else if" actually be executed in current mainline?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In an attempt to be at least a little constructive, I am doing some
> > > > > > > testing of this patch overnight, along with a WARN_ON_ONCE() to see if
> > > > > > > that invoke_rcu_core() is ever reached.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And that WARN_ON_ONCE() never triggered in two-hour rcutorture runs of
> > > > > > TREE01, TREE02, TREE03, and TREE09. (These are the TREE variants in
> > > > > > CFLIST that have CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This of course raises other questions. But first, do you see that code
> > > > > > executing in your testing?
> > > > >
> > > > > Never mind! Idiot here forgot the "--bootargs rcutree.use_softirq"...
> > > >
> > > > So this time I ran the test this way:
> > > >
> > > > tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh --cpus 8 --duration 10 --configs "TREE01 TREE02 TREE03 TREE09" --bootargs "rcutree.use_softirq=0"
> > > >
> > > > Still no splats. Though only 10-minute runs instead of the two-hour runs
> > > > I did last night. (Got other stuff I need to do, sorry!)
> > > >
> > > > My test version of your patch is shown below. Please let me know if I messed
> > > > something up.
> > >
> > > I think you also need to pass rcutorture.irqreader=1 ?
> > >
> > > Otherwise seems all readers happen in process context AFAICS.
> >
> > Which is the default setting for that, so that's not the issue.
> >
> > I think one reason could be, in_irq() is false when the timer callback
> > executes, since the timer callback is executing after a grace-period. The
> > stack is as follows:
> >
> > Any reason why we cannot both test for call_rcu() and execute the RCU
> > callback from the timer hardirq handler?
> >
> > In fact, I guess on use_nosoftirq systems, the callback will not even run
> > in softirq context.
> >
> > [ 20.553361] => rcu_torture_timer_cb
> > [ 20.553361] => rcu_do_batch
> > [ 20.553361] => rcu_core
> > [ 20.553361] => __do_softirq
> > [ 20.553361] => do_softirq_own_stack
> > [ 20.553361] => do_softirq.part.16
> > [ 20.553361] => __local_bh_enable_ip
> > [ 20.553361] => rcutorture_one_extend
> > [ 20.553361] => rcu_torture_one_read
> > [ 20.553361] => rcu_torture_reader
> > [ 20.553361] => kthread
> > [ 20.553361] => ret_from_fork
>
> Oops! wrong stack trace, this is the one where it shows that the timer handler
> is running from softirq, not hardirq. Both the rcu_torture_timer() and
> rcu_torture_timer_cb() run from softirq context. ftrace confirms:
>
> [ 27.949671] rcu_tort-182 8..s1 7268705us : <stack trace>
> [ 27.949671] => __ftrace_trace_stack
> [ 27.949671] => rcu_torture_timer
> [ 27.949671] => call_timer_fn
> [ 27.949671] => run_timer_softirq
> [ 27.949671] => __do_softirq
> [ 27.949671] => irq_exit
> [ 27.949671] => smp_apic_timer_interrupt
> [ 27.949671] => apic_timer_interrupt
> [ 27.949671] => rcutorture_one_extend
> [ 27.949671] => rcu_torture_one_read
> [ 27.949671] => rcu_torture_reader
> [ 27.949671] => kthread
> [ 27.949671] => ret_from_fork
>
> So looks like torture testing modifications are called for, to run them in
> hard interrupt context as well to provide this additional coverage.. Or am I
> way off in the woods?
That actually might be worth doing.
The reason I didn't bother is that in the common case, timer softirq
generates exactly the same race conditions as would a hard interrupt
handler. You can see this in your stack trace, where the call is
coming from irq_exit(), that is, from the trailing edge of a hardware
interrupt.
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-21 15:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-18 21:49 [RFC v2] rcu/tree: Try to invoke_rcu_core() if in_irq() during unlock Joel Fernandes (Google)
2019-08-18 22:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-18 22:32 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-18 22:35 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-18 23:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-18 23:38 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-19 1:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-19 1:41 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-19 1:46 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-19 2:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-19 12:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-19 14:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-19 15:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-19 16:25 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-21 14:38 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-21 14:56 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-21 15:26 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-21 15:47 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2019-08-21 15:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-21 15:46 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-21 15:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-08-20 0:14 ` Scott Wood
2019-08-20 1:40 ` Joel Fernandes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190821154755.GH28441@linux.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.