linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 1/3] rcu: The Bloatwatch Edition, v7

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20091014010956.GG6782@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:09:56 -0700
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, dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com, avi@...hat.com,
	mtosatti@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 1/3] rcu: The Bloatwatch Edition, v7

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 08:37:18AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> It's an old issue.
> >> It's not only about RCUTINY, it's also about other rcu implementations:
> >>
> >> rcu_enter_nohz()/rcu_exit_nohz() are not called in pairs.
> >>
> >> irq_exit() calls tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() which calls rcu_enter_nohz(),
> >> where is the corresponding rcu_exit_nohz()?
> >> (or tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick())?
> > 
> > The tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick() function is called from the various
> > per-architecture cpu_idle() functions (or default_idle() or whatever
> > name that the architecture uses).  For example, in:
> > 
> > 	arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> > 
> > the cpu_idle() function invokes tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick() just
> > before invoking schedule() to exit the idle loop.
> > 
> > And, as you say, tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick() invokes rcu_exit_nohz().
> 
> These tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick() which are called from the various
> per-architecture cpu_idle() functions are not the opposite of
> the tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() in *irq_exit()*. So I figure that 
> rcu_enter_nohz()/rcu_exit_nohz() are not called in pairs.

OK, let's start with rcu_enter_nohz(), which tells RCU that the running
CPU is going into dyntick-idle mode, and thus should be ignored by RCU.
Let's do the idle loop first:

o	Upon entry to the idle() loop (using cpu_idle() in
	arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c for this exercise),
	we invoke tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick(1), which says we
	are in an idle loop.  (This is in contrast to the call
	from irq_exit(), where we are not in the idle loop.)

o	tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() invokes rcu_enter_nohz(),
	does a bunch of timer checking, and returns.  If anything
	indicated that entering dyntick-idle mode would be bad,
	we raise TIMER_SOFTIRQ to kick us out of this mode.

	Either way, we return to the idle loop.

o	The idle loops until need_resched().  Upon exit from the
	idle loop, we call tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick(), which
	invokes rcu_exit_nohz(), which tells RCU to start paying
	attention to this CPU once more.

OK, now for interrupts.

o	The hardware interrupt handlers invoke irq_enter(), which in
	turn invokes rcu_irq_enter().  This has no real effect (other
	than incrementing a counter) if the interrupt did not come
	from dyntick-idle mode.

	Either way, RCU is now paying attention to RCU read-side
	critical sections on this CPU.

o	Upon return from interrupt, the hardware interrupt handlers
	invoke irq_exit(), which in turn invokes rcu_irq_exit().
	This has no real effect (other than decrementing a counter)
	if the interrupt is not returning to dyntick-idle mode.

	However, if the interrupt -is- returning to dyntick-idle
	mode, then RCU will stop paying attention to RCU read-side
	critical sections on this CPU.

So I do believe that rcu_enter_nohz() and rcu_exit_nohz() are in fact
invoked in pairs.  One strange thing about this is that the idle loop
first invokes rcu_enter_nohz(), then invokes rcu_exit_nohz(), while
an interrupt handler first invokes rcu_irq_enter() and then invokes
rcu_irq_exit().  So the idle loop enters dyntick-idle mode and then
leaves it, while an interrupt handler might leave dyntick-idle mode and
then re-enter it.

Or am I still missing something here?

							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/