Date:	Thu, 5 Feb 2015 09:54:31 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: Don't use complete() during __cpu_die

On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 05:34:40PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 09:02:28AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 04:11:00PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 06:29:18AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > Works for me, assuming no hidden uses of RCU in the IPI code.  ;-)
> > > 
> > > Sigh... I kind'a new it wouldn't be this simple.  The gic code which
> > > actually raises the IPI takes a raw spinlock, so it's not going to be
> > > this simple - there's a small theoretical window where we have taken
> > > this lock, written the register to send the IPI, and then dropped the
> > > lock - the update to the lock to release it could get lost if the
> > > CPU power is quickly cut at that point.
> > > 
> > > Also, we _do_ need the second cache flush in place to ensure that the
> > > unlock is seen to other CPUs.
> > > 
> > > We could work around that by taking and releasing the lock in the IPI
> > > processing function... but this is starting to look less attractive
> > > as the lock is private to irq-gic.c.
> > > 
> > > Well, we're very close to 3.19, we're too close to be trying to sort
> > > this out, so I'm hoping that your changes which cause this RCU error
> > > are *not* going in during this merge window, because we seem to have
> > > something of a problem right now which needs more time to resolve.
> > 
> > Most likely into the 3.20 merge window.  But please keep in mind that
> > RCU is just the messenger here -- the current code will break if any
> > CPU for whatever reason takes more than a jiffy to get from its
> > _stop_machine() handler to the end of its last RCU read-side critical
> > section on its way out.  A jiffy may sound like a lot, but it is not
> > hard to exceed this limit, especially in virtualized environments.
> 
> What I'm saying is that we can't likely get a good fix prepared before
> the 3.20 merge window opens.

And I cannot count.  Or cannot type.  Or something.

I meant do say "Most likely into the 3.21 merge window."  I agree that
this stuff is not ready for next week's merge window.  For one thing,
there are similar issues with a number of other architectures as well.

> I don't term the set_bit/clear_bit solution a "good fix" because it is
> far too complex - I've not done a thorough review on it, but the idea
> of setting and clearing a couple of bits in unison, making sure that
> their state is set appropriately through multiple different code paths
> does not strike me as a provably correct replacement for this completion.
> The reason for that complexity is because there is no pre-notification
> to arch code that a CPU might be going down, so there's no way for the
> "CPU is dead" flag to be properly reset (which is why there's all the
> manipulation in lots of possible failure paths.)
> 
> The idea that we could reset it in the CPU up code doesn't fly - that
> would only work if we had one secondary CPU (which would guarantee a
> strict up/down/up ordering on it) but as soon as you have more than one
> CPU, that doesn't hold true.
> 
> We could hook into the CPU hotplug notifiers - which would be quite a
> lot of additional code to achieve the reset early enough in the hot
> unplug path, though it would probably be the most reliable solution to
> the wait-for-bit solution.
> 
> However, any of those solutions needs writing and thorough testing,
> which, if Linus opens the merge window on Sunday, isn't going to
> happen before hand (and we know Linus doesn't like extra development
> appearing which wasn't in -next prior to the merge window - he's taken
> snapshots of -next to check during the merge window in the past - so
> it's not something I'm going to be adding during that time, not even
> as a "fix" because we know about the problem right now, before the
> merge window.  To me, to treat this as a "fix" would be wilfully
> deceitful.)
> 
> I don't think the existing code is a big problem at the moment - it's
> been like this for about 10 years, and no one has ever reported an
> issue with it, although there have been changes over that time:
> 
> aa033810461ee56abbef6cef10aabd6b97f5caee
> ARM: smp: Drop RCU_NONIDLE usage in cpu_die()
> 
> 	This removed the RCU_NONIDLE() from the completion() call.
> 
> ff081e05bfba3461119cd280201d163b6858eda2
> ARM: 7457/1: smp: Fix suspicious RCU originating from cpu_die()
> 
> 	This added the RCU_NONIDLE() to the completion() call.
> 
> 3c030beabf937b1d3b4ecaedfd1fb2f1e2aa0c70
> ARM: CPU hotplug: move cpu_killed completion to core code
> 
> 	This moved the completion code from Realview (and other ARM
> 	platforms) into core ARM code.
> 
> and 97a63ecff4bd06da5d8feb8c0394a4d020f2d34d
> [ARM SMP] Add CPU hotplug support for Realview MPcore
> 
> 	The earliest current introduction of CPU hotplug in 2005.

Agreed.  It does need to be fixed, but it makes sense to take a few
weeks and get a fix that is more likely to be correct.

							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