| 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, 29 Aug 2014 14:54:54 +0800
From: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
CC: mingo@...nel.org, laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
dvhart@...ux.intel.com, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
bobby.prani@...il.com, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] Eliminate deadlock between CPU hotplug
and expedited grace periods
On 2014年08月29日 03:47, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Currently, the expedited grace-period primitives do get_online_cpus().
> This greatly simplifies their implementation, but means that calls to
> them holding locks that are acquired by CPU-hotplug notifiers (to say
> nothing of calls to these primitives from CPU-hotplug notifiers) can
> deadlock. But this is starting to become inconvenient:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/5/754
>
> This commit avoids the deadlock and retains the simplicity by creating
> a try_get_online_cpus(), which returns false if the get_online_cpus()
> reference count could not immediately be incremented. If a call to
> try_get_online_cpus() returns true, the expedited primitives operate
> as before. If a call returns false, the expedited primitives fall back
> to normal grace-period operations. This falling back of course results
> in increased grace-period latency, but only during times when CPU
> hotplug operations are actually in flight. The effect should therefore
> be negligible during normal operation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
> Cc: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>
>
Hi Paul:
I tested this patch and it fixes my issue. Thanks.
Tested-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpu.h b/include/linux/cpu.h
> index 95978ad7fcdd..b2d9a43012b2 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cpu.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpu.h
> @@ -213,6 +213,7 @@ extern struct bus_type cpu_subsys;
> extern void cpu_hotplug_begin(void);
> extern void cpu_hotplug_done(void);
> extern void get_online_cpus(void);
> +extern bool try_get_online_cpus(void);
> extern void put_online_cpus(void);
> extern void cpu_hotplug_disable(void);
> extern void cpu_hotplug_enable(void);
> @@ -230,6 +231,7 @@ int cpu_down(unsigned int cpu);
> static inline void cpu_hotplug_begin(void) {}
> static inline void cpu_hotplug_done(void) {}
> #define get_online_cpus() do { } while (0)
> +#define try_get_online_cpus() true
> #define put_online_cpus() do { } while (0)
> #define cpu_hotplug_disable() do { } while (0)
> #define cpu_hotplug_enable() do { } while (0)
> diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> index 008388f920d7..4f86465cc317 100644
> --- a/include/linux/lockdep.h
> +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> @@ -505,6 +505,7 @@ static inline void print_irqtrace_events(struct task_struct *curr)
>
> #define lock_map_acquire(l) lock_acquire_exclusive(l, 0, 0, NULL, _THIS_IP_)
> #define lock_map_acquire_read(l) lock_acquire_shared_recursive(l, 0, 0, NULL, _THIS_IP_)
> +#define lock_map_acquire_tryread(l) lock_acquire_shared_recursive(l, 0, 1, NULL, _THIS_IP_)
> #define lock_map_release(l) lock_release(l, 1, _THIS_IP_)
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> index 81e2a388a0f6..356450f09c1f 100644
> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> @@ -79,6 +79,8 @@ static struct {
>
> /* Lockdep annotations for get/put_online_cpus() and cpu_hotplug_begin/end() */
> #define cpuhp_lock_acquire_read() lock_map_acquire_read(&cpu_hotplug.dep_map)
> +#define cpuhp_lock_acquire_tryread() \
> + lock_map_acquire_tryread(&cpu_hotplug.dep_map)
> #define cpuhp_lock_acquire() lock_map_acquire(&cpu_hotplug.dep_map)
> #define cpuhp_lock_release() lock_map_release(&cpu_hotplug.dep_map)
>
> @@ -91,10 +93,22 @@ void get_online_cpus(void)
> mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> cpu_hotplug.refcount++;
> mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> -
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(get_online_cpus);
>
> +bool try_get_online_cpus(void)
> +{
> + if (cpu_hotplug.active_writer == current)
> + return true;
> + if (!mutex_trylock(&cpu_hotplug.lock))
> + return false;
> + cpuhp_lock_acquire_tryread();
> + cpu_hotplug.refcount++;
> + mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> + return true;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(try_get_online_cpus);
> +
> void put_online_cpus(void)
> {
> if (cpu_hotplug.active_writer == current)
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index d7a3b13bc94c..04558f0c9d64 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -2940,11 +2940,6 @@ static int synchronize_sched_expedited_cpu_stop(void *data)
> * restructure your code to batch your updates, and then use a single
> * synchronize_sched() instead.
> *
> - * Note that it is illegal to call this function while holding any lock
> - * that is acquired by a CPU-hotplug notifier. And yes, it is also illegal
> - * to call this function from a CPU-hotplug notifier. Failing to observe
> - * these restriction will result in deadlock.
> - *
> * This implementation can be thought of as an application of ticket
> * locking to RCU, with sync_sched_expedited_started and
> * sync_sched_expedited_done taking on the roles of the halves
> @@ -2994,7 +2989,12 @@ void synchronize_sched_expedited(void)
> */
> snap = atomic_long_inc_return(&rsp->expedited_start);
> firstsnap = snap;
> - get_online_cpus();
> + if (!try_get_online_cpus()) {
> + /* CPU hotplug operation in flight, fall back to normal GP. */
> + wait_rcu_gp(call_rcu_sched);
> + atomic_long_inc(&rsp->expedited_normal);
> + return;
> + }
> WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu_is_offline(raw_smp_processor_id()));
>
> /*
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> index fb833811c2f6..821dcf9a3b94 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> @@ -793,11 +793,6 @@ sync_rcu_preempt_exp_init(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp)
> * In fact, if you are using synchronize_rcu_expedited() in a loop,
> * please restructure your code to batch your updates, and then Use a
> * single synchronize_rcu() instead.
> - *
> - * Note that it is illegal to call this function while holding any lock
> - * that is acquired by a CPU-hotplug notifier. And yes, it is also illegal
> - * to call this function from a CPU-hotplug notifier. Failing to observe
> - * these restriction will result in deadlock.
> */
> void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void)
> {
> @@ -819,7 +814,11 @@ void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void)
> * being boosted. This simplifies the process of moving tasks
> * from leaf to root rcu_node structures.
> */
> - get_online_cpus();
> + if (!try_get_online_cpus()) {
> + /* CPU-hotplug operation in flight, fall back to normal GP. */
> + wait_rcu_gp(call_rcu);
> + return;
> + }
>
> /*
> * Acquire lock, falling back to synchronize_rcu() if too many
>
--
Best regards
Tianyu Lan
--
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