| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090819181043.GA31491@Krystal>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:10:43 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Josh Triplett <josht@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dvhltc@...ibm.com,
niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk,
benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip/core/rcu 1/6] Cleanups and fixes for RCU in face
of heavy CPU-hotplug stress
* Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:24:26AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 01:07:01PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 05:26:43PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > FYI, i've started triggering hangs in -tip testing recently, during
> > > > > CPU hotplug tests:
> > > > >
> > > > > [ 57.632003] eth0: no IPv6 routers present
> > > > > [ 103.564010] kmemleak: 29 new suspected memory leaks (see /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak)
> > > > > [ 200.380003] Hangcheck: hangcheck value past margin!
> > > > > [ 248.192003] INFO: task S99local:2974 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> > > > > [ 248.194532] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> > > > > [ 248.202330] S99local D 0000000c 6256 2974 2687 0x00000000
> > > > > [ 248.208929] 9c7ebe90 00000086 6b67ef8b 0000000c 9f25a610 81a69869 00000001 820b6990
> > > > > [ 248.216123] 820b6990 820b6990 9c6e4c20 9c6e4eb4 82c78990 00000000 6b993559 0000000c
> > > > > [ 248.220616] 9c7ebe90 8105f22a 9c6e4eb4 9c6e4c20 00000001 9c7ebe98 9c7ebeb4 81a65cb3
> > > > > [ 248.229990] Call Trace:
> > > > > [ 248.234049] [<81a69869>] ? _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x22/0x37
> > > > > [ 248.239769] [<8105f22a>] ? prepare_to_wait+0x48/0x4e
> > > > > [ 248.244796] [<81a65cb3>] rcu_barrier_cpu_hotplug+0xaa/0xc9
> > > > > [ 248.250343] [<8105f029>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38
> > > > > [ 248.256063] [<81062cf2>] notifier_call_chain+0x49/0x71
> > > > > [ 248.261263] [<81062da0>] raw_notifier_call_chain+0x11/0x13
> > > > > [ 248.266809] [<81a0b475>] _cpu_down+0x272/0x288
> > > > > [ 248.271316] [<81a0b4d5>] cpu_down+0x4a/0xa2
> > > > > [ 248.275563] [<81a0c48a>] store_online+0x2a/0x5e
> > > > > [ 248.280156] [<81a0c460>] ? store_online+0x0/0x5e
> > > > > [ 248.284836] [<814ddc35>] sysdev_store+0x20/0x28
> > > > > [ 248.289429] [<8112e403>] sysfs_write_file+0xb8/0xe3
> > > > > [ 248.294369] [<8112e34b>] ? sysfs_write_file+0x0/0xe3
> > > > > [ 248.299396] [<810e4c8f>] vfs_write+0x91/0x120
> > > > > [ 248.303817] [<810e4dc1>] sys_write+0x40/0x65
> > > > > [ 248.308150] [<81002d73>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x28
> > > > >
> > > > > config and bootlog attached. I'd suspect one of these patches:
> > > > >
> > > > > 684ca5c: rcu: Fix typo in rcu_irq_exit() comment header
> > > > > b612ba8: rcu: Make rcupreempt_trace.c look at offline CPUs
> > > > > 8064d54: rcu: Make preemptable RCU scan all CPUs when summing RCU counters
> > > > > 2e59755: rcu: Simplify RCU CPU-hotplug notification
> > > > > 799e64f: cpu hotplug: Introduce cpu_notifier() to handle !HOTPLUG_CPU case
> > > > > 2756962: rcu: Split hierarchical RCU initialization into boot-time and CPU-online piece
> > > > >
> > > > > Any ideas?
> > > >
> > > > Gah... I thought I had fixed that one!!! I was seeing a deadlock
> > > > where rcu_barrier_cpu_hotplug() would register the three RCU callbacks,
> > > > then wait for them. But in some situations, it would wait for them in
> > > > a state such that grace period could not complete. I convinced myself
> > > > that moving the wait back from CPU_DEAD to CPU_POST_DEAD solved the
> > > > problem.
> > > >
> > > > I am going to take a more bullet-proof approach, switching from the
> > > > wait_completion() form to wait_event(), which will allow me to wait
> > > > for the previous hotplug operation's callbacks at the beginning of the
> > > > subsequent hotplug operation.
> > > >
> > > > I reserve the right to insert a short delay in the CPU-hotplug path
> > > > outside of any locks, but would imagine that people would prefer that
> > > > I avoid that sort of thing, at least until we have bulk CPU-hotplug
> > > > operations.
> > >
> > > And here is a patch that is doing well in testing thus far. (On the
> > > other hand tip/core/rcu did fine in my testing.) I am not 100% confident
> > > that this new patch hitting the core RCU/CPU-hotplug issue, but this
> > > is in any case helpful in getting an RCU grace period off of the CPU
> > > hotunplug critical path.
> > >
> > > Feel free to test if convenient. The other thing I am considering is
> > > moving the registering of the three rcu_migrate_head callbacks from the
> > > CPU_DYING notifier to the CPU_POST_DEAD notifier.
> > >
> > > Thanx, Paul
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Delay rcu_barrier() wait until beginning of next CPU-hotunplug operation.
> > >
> > > This change moves an RCU grace period delay off of the critical path for
> > > CPU-hotunplug operations. Since RCU callback migration is only performed
> > > on CPU-hotunplug operations, and since the rcu_barrier() race is
> > > provoked only by consecutive CPU-hotunplug operations, it is not
> > > necessary to delay the end of a given CPU-hotunplug operation. We can
> > > instead choose to delay the beginning of the next CPU-hotunplug
> > > operation, as shown by the following patch.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > rcupdate.c | 3 ++-
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcupdate.c b/kernel/rcupdate.c
> > > index 8df1156..bd5d5c8 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcupdate.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcupdate.c
> > > @@ -238,7 +238,8 @@ static int __cpuinit rcu_barrier_cpu_hotplug(struct notifier_block *self,
> > > call_rcu_bh(rcu_migrate_head, rcu_migrate_callback);
> > > call_rcu_sched(rcu_migrate_head + 1, rcu_migrate_callback);
> > > call_rcu(rcu_migrate_head + 2, rcu_migrate_callback);
> > > - } else if (action == CPU_POST_DEAD) {
> > > + } else if (action == CPU_DOWN_PREPARE) {
> > > + /* Don't need to wait until next removal operation. */
> > > /* rcu_migrate_head is protected by cpu_add_remove_lock */
> > > wait_migrated_callbacks();
> > > }
> >
> >
> > Looking at :
> >
> > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip.git;a=blob;f=kernel/rcupdate.c;h=bd5d5c8e51408343f3067a80611d5d1fed8ca89d;hb=1423cc033df017c762a9155eec470da77a460141
> >
> > Why is wait_migrated_callbacks() called by
> >
> > static void _rcu_barrier(enum rcu_barrier type) ?
> >
> > I would have expected it to be only called by
> > rcu_barrier_cpu_hotplug(), so that wait_event() would match the number
> > of wakeup().
> >
> > I think if we have a race between
> >
> > - rcu_barrier_cpu_hotplug(..., CPU_DYING) (on the dying cpu, with
> > stop_machine())
> > - _rcu_barrier (on another CPU) -> wait_event() on false cond., calls
> > schedule()
> >
> > then execution of
> >
> > - rcu_barrier_cpu_hotplug(..., CPU_POST_DEAD) (on the CPU handling the
> > hotunplug request) -> wait_event() on false cond., calls schedule()
> > ...
> > - eventually, all the RCU callbacks have been executed, including the 3
> > migration callbacks -> wakeup()
> > -> would only wake up _rcu_barrier.
> >
> > Therefore, rcu_barrier_cpu_hotplug() would be sitting there waiting
> > forever.
>
> Thank you for taking a careful look at this! Color me blind!!!
>
> > Maybe wake_up_all() would be more appropriate ?
>
> Or using two different wait queues.
>
Then I don't see how you deal with concurrency between multiple
_rcu_barrier(). wait_event() is done outside of the mutex.
Mathieu
> Thanx, Paul
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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