| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:32:19 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 11/11] rcu: move TREE_RCU from softirq
to kthread
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 04:17:58PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 02/23/2011 09:39 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
> >
> > If RCU priority boosting is to be meaningful, callback invocation must
> > be boosted in addition to preempted RCU readers. Otherwise, in presence
> > of CPU real-time threads, the grace period ends, but the callbacks don't
> > get invoked. If the callbacks don't get invoked, the associated memory
> > doesn't get freed, so the system is still subject to OOM.
> >
> > But it is not reasonable to priority-boost RCU_SOFTIRQ, so this commit
> > moves the callback invocations to a kthread, which can be boosted easily.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/interrupt.h | 1 -
> > include/trace/events/irq.h | 3 +-
> > kernel/rcutree.c | 324 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > kernel/rcutree.h | 8 +
> > kernel/rcutree_plugin.h | 4 +-
> > tools/perf/util/trace-event-parse.c | 1 -
> > 6 files changed, 331 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/interrupt.h b/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > index 79d0c4f..ed47deb 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > @@ -385,7 +385,6 @@ enum
> > TASKLET_SOFTIRQ,
> > SCHED_SOFTIRQ,
> > HRTIMER_SOFTIRQ,
> > - RCU_SOFTIRQ, /* Preferable RCU should always be the last softirq */
> >
> > NR_SOFTIRQS
> > };
> > diff --git a/include/trace/events/irq.h b/include/trace/events/irq.h
> > index 1c09820..ae045ca 100644
> > --- a/include/trace/events/irq.h
> > +++ b/include/trace/events/irq.h
> > @@ -20,8 +20,7 @@ struct softirq_action;
> > softirq_name(BLOCK_IOPOLL), \
> > softirq_name(TASKLET), \
> > softirq_name(SCHED), \
> > - softirq_name(HRTIMER), \
> > - softirq_name(RCU))
> > + softirq_name(HRTIMER))
> >
> > /**
> > * irq_handler_entry - called immediately before the irq action handler
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > index 0ac1cc0..2241f28 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > @@ -47,6 +47,8 @@
> > #include <linux/mutex.h>
> > #include <linux/time.h>
> > #include <linux/kernel_stat.h>
> > +#include <linux/wait.h>
> > +#include <linux/kthread.h>
> >
> > #include "rcutree.h"
> >
> > @@ -82,6 +84,18 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rcu_data, rcu_bh_data);
> > int rcu_scheduler_active __read_mostly;
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_scheduler_active);
> >
> > +/* Control variables for per-CPU and per-rcu_node kthreads. */
>
> I think "per-leaf-rcu_node" is better. It seems that only the leaf rcu_node
> of rcu_sched are used for rcu_node kthreads and they also serve for
> other rcu domains(rcu_bh, rcu_preempt)? I think we need to add some
> comments for it.
There is a per-root_rcu_node kthread that is added with priority boosting.
Good point on the scope of the kthreads. I have changed the above
comment to read:
/*
* Control variables for per-CPU and per-rcu_node kthreads. These
* handle all flavors of RCU.
*/
Seem reasonable?
> > +/*
> > + * Timer handler to initiate the waking up of per-CPU kthreads that
> > + * have yielded the CPU due to excess numbers of RCU callbacks.
> > + */
> > +static void rcu_cpu_kthread_timer(unsigned long arg)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + struct rcu_data *rdp = (struct rcu_data *)arg;
> > + struct rcu_node *rnp = rdp->mynode;
> > + struct task_struct *t;
> > +
> > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
> > + rnp->wakemask |= rdp->grpmask;
>
> I think there is no reason that the rnp->lock also protects the
> rnp->node_kthread_task. "raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);"
> can be moved up here.
If I am not too confused, the lock needs to cover the statements below
in order to correctly handle races with concurrent CPU-hotplug operations.
> > + t = rnp->node_kthread_task;
> > + if (t == NULL) {
> > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > + wake_up_process(t);
> > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Drop to non-real-time priority and yield, but only after posting a
> > + * timer that will cause us to regain our real-time priority if we
> > + * remain preempted. Either way, we restore our real-time priority
> > + * before returning.
> > + */
> > +static void rcu_yield(int cpu)
> > +{
> > + struct rcu_data *rdp = per_cpu_ptr(rcu_sched_state.rda, cpu);
> > + struct sched_param sp;
> > + struct timer_list yield_timer;
> > +
> > + setup_timer(&yield_timer, rcu_cpu_kthread_timer, (unsigned long)rdp);
> > + mod_timer(&yield_timer, jiffies + 2);
> > + sp.sched_priority = 0;
> > + sched_setscheduler_nocheck(current, SCHED_NORMAL, &sp);
> > + schedule();
> > + sp.sched_priority = RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO;
> > + sched_setscheduler_nocheck(current, SCHED_FIFO, &sp);
> > + del_timer(&yield_timer);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Handle cases where the rcu_cpu_kthread() ends up on the wrong CPU.
> > + * This can happen while the corresponding CPU is either coming online
> > + * or going offline. We cannot wait until the CPU is fully online
> > + * before starting the kthread, because the various notifier functions
> > + * can wait for RCU grace periods. So we park rcu_cpu_kthread() until
> > + * the corresponding CPU is online.
> > + *
> > + * Return 1 if the kthread needs to stop, 0 otherwise.
> > + *
> > + * Caller must disable bh. This function can momentarily enable it.
> > + */
> > +static int rcu_cpu_kthread_should_stop(int cpu)
> > +{
> > + while (cpu_is_offline(cpu) || smp_processor_id() != cpu) {
> > + if (kthread_should_stop())
> > + return 1;
> > + local_bh_enable();
> > + schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
> > + if (smp_processor_id() != cpu)
> > + set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(cpu));
>
> The current task is PF_THREAD_BOUND,
> Why do "set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(cpu));" ?
Because I have seen CPU hotplug operations unbind PF_THREAD_BOUND threads.
In addition, I end up having to spawn the kthread at CPU_UP_PREPARE time,
at which point the thread must run unbound because its CPU isn't online
yet. I cannot invoke kthread_create() within the stop-machine handler
(right?). I cannot wait until CPU_ONLINE time because that results in
hangs when other CPU notifiers wait for grace periods.
Yes, I did find out about the hangs the hard way. Why do you ask? ;-)
Please feel free to suggest improvements in the header comment above
for rcu_cpu_kthread_should_stop(), which is my apparently insufficient
attempt to explain this.
> > + local_bh_disable();
> > + }
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Per-CPU kernel thread that invokes RCU callbacks. This replaces the
> > + * earlier RCU softirq.
> > + */
> > +static int rcu_cpu_kthread(void *arg)
> > +{
> > + int cpu = (int)(long)arg;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + int spincnt = 0;
> > + wait_queue_head_t *wqp = &per_cpu(rcu_cpu_wq, cpu);
> > + char work;
> > + char *workp = &per_cpu(rcu_cpu_has_work, cpu);
> > +
> > + for (;;) {
> > + wait_event_interruptible(*wqp,
> > + *workp != 0 || kthread_should_stop());
> > + local_bh_disable();
> > + if (rcu_cpu_kthread_should_stop(cpu)) {
> > + local_bh_enable();
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + local_irq_save(flags);
> > + work = *workp;
> > + *workp = 0;
> > + local_irq_restore(flags);
> > + if (work)
> > + rcu_process_callbacks();
> > + local_bh_enable();
> > + if (*workp != 0)
> > + spincnt++;
> > + else
> > + spincnt = 0;
> > + if (spincnt > 10) {
>
> "10" is a magic number here.
It is indeed. Suggestions for a cpp macro name to hide it behind?
> > + rcu_yield(cpu);
> > + spincnt = 0;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
>
>
> > +/*
> > + * Per-rcu_node kthread, which is in charge of waking up the per-CPU
> > + * kthreads when needed.
> > + */
> > +static int rcu_node_kthread(void *arg)
> > +{
> > + int cpu;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + unsigned long mask;
> > + struct rcu_node *rnp = (struct rcu_node *)arg;
> > + struct sched_param sp;
> > + struct task_struct *t;
> > +
> > + for (;;) {
> > + wait_event_interruptible(rnp->node_wq, rnp->wakemask != 0 ||
> > + kthread_should_stop());
> > + if (kthread_should_stop())
> > + break;
> > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
> > + mask = rnp->wakemask;
> > + rnp->wakemask = 0;
> > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> > + for (cpu = rnp->grplo; cpu <= rnp->grphi; cpu++, mask <<= 1) {
> > + if ((mask & 0x1) == 0)
> > + continue;
> > + preempt_disable();
> > + per_cpu(rcu_cpu_has_work, cpu) = 1;
> > + t = per_cpu(rcu_cpu_kthread_task, cpu);
> > + if (t == NULL) {
> > + preempt_enable();
> > + continue;
> > + }
>
> Obviously preempt_disable() is not for protecting remote percpu data.
> Is it for disabling cpu hotplug? I am afraid the @t may leave
> and become invalid.
Indeed, acquiring the rnp->lock is safer, except that I don't trust
calling sched_setscheduler_nocheck() in that state. So I need to check
for the CPU being online after the preempt_disable(). This means that
I ignore requests to do work after CPU_DYING time, but that is OK because
force_quiescent_state() will figure out that the CPU is in fact offline.
Make sense?
In any case, good catch!!!
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists