linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] rcu: Keep gpnum and completed fields synchronized

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101210234709.GC1713@nowhere>
Date:	Sat, 11 Dec 2010 00:47:11 +0100
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, laijs@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rcu: Keep gpnum and completed fields synchronized

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 03:39:20PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 03:02:00PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:11:11PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > When a CPU that was in an extended quiescent state wakes
> > > up and catches up with grace periods that remote CPUs
> > > completed on its behalf, we update the completed field
> > > but not the gpnum that keeps a stale value of a backward
> > > grace period ID.
> > > 
> > > Later, note_new_gpnum() will interpret the shift between
> > > the local CPU and the node grace period ID as some new grace
> > > period to handle and will then start to hunt quiescent state.
> > > 
> > > But if every grace periods have already been completed, this
> > > interpretation becomes broken. And we'll be stuck in clusters
> > > of spurious softirqs because rcu_report_qs_rdp() will make
> > > this broken state run into infinite loop.
> > > 
> > > The solution, as suggested by Lai Jiangshan, is to ensure that
> > > the gpnum and completed fields are well synchronized when we catch
> > > up with completed grace periods on their behalf by other cpus.
> > > This way we won't start noting spurious new grace periods.
> > 
> > Also good, queued!
> > 
> > One issue -- this approach is vulnerable to overflow.  I therefore
> > followed up with a patch that changes the condition to
> > 
> > 	if (ULONG_CMP_LT(rdp->gpnum, rdp->completed))
> 
> And here is the follow-up patch, FWIW.
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul

Hmm, it doesn't apply on top of my two patches. It seems you have
kept my two previous patches, which makes it fail as it lacks them
as a base.

Did you intend to keep them? I hope they are quite useless now, otherwise
it means there is other cases I forgot.

Thanks.

> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> commit d864b245030645e3465b3bd7e253b7ccf76e9d35
> Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Date:   Fri Dec 10 15:02:47 2010 -0800
> 
>     rcu: fine-tune grace-period begin/end checks
>     
>     Use the CPU's bit in rnp->qsmask to determine whether or not the CPU
>     should try to report a quiescent state.  Handle overflow in the check
>     for rdp->gpnum having fallen behind.
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> index f8e4ee7..6103017 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> @@ -618,20 +618,16 @@ static void __note_new_gpnum(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp, struct
>  {
>  	if (rdp->gpnum != rnp->gpnum) {
>  		/*
> -		 * Because RCU checks for the prior grace period ending
> -		 * before checking for a new grace period starting, it
> -		 * is possible for rdp->gpnum to be set to the old grace
> -		 * period and rdp->completed to be set to the new grace
> -		 * period.  So don't bother checking for a quiescent state
> -		 * for the rnp->gpnum grace period unless it really is
> -		 * waiting for this CPU.
> +		 * If the current grace period is waiting for this CPU,
> +		 * set up to detect a quiescent state, otherwise don't
> +		 * go looking for one.
>  		 */
> -		if (rdp->completed != rnp->gpnum) {
> +		rdp->gpnum = rnp->gpnum;
> +		if (rnp->qsmask & rdp->grpmask) {
>  			rdp->qs_pending = 1;
>  			rdp->passed_quiesc = 0;
> -		}
> -
> -		rdp->gpnum = rnp->gpnum;
> +		} else
> +			rdp->qs_pending = 0;
>  	}
>  }
>  
> @@ -693,19 +689,20 @@ __rcu_process_gp_end(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_dat
>  
>  		/*
>  		 * If we were in an extended quiescent state, we may have
> -		 * missed some grace periods that others CPUs took care on
> +		 * missed some grace periods that others CPUs handled on
>  		 * our behalf. Catch up with this state to avoid noting
> -		 * spurious new grace periods.
> +		 * spurious new grace periods.  If another grace period
> +		 * has started, then rnp->gpnum will have advanced, so
> +		 * we will detect this later on.
>  		 */
> -		if (rdp->completed > rdp->gpnum)
> +		if (ULONG_CMP_LT(rdp->gpnum, rdp->completed))
>  			rdp->gpnum = rdp->completed;
>  
>  		/*
> -		 * If another CPU handled our extended quiescent states and
> -		 * we have no more grace period to complete yet, then stop
> -		 * chasing quiescent states.
> +		 * If RCU does not need a quiescent state from this CPU,
> +		 * then make sure that this CPU doesn't go looking for one.
>  		 */
> -		if (rdp->completed == rnp->gpnum)
> +		if (rnp->qsmask & rdp->grpmask)
>  			rdp->qs_pending = 0;
>  	}
>  }
--
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/