| 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: <20130730174553.GE26694@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:45:53 -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, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
edumazet@...gle.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC nohz_full 7/7] nohz_full: Force RCU's grace-period
kthreads onto timekeeping CPU
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 09:40:03AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 07/30/2013 12:52 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:36:05AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >> On 07/27/2013 07:19 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>>
> >>> Because RCU's quiescent-state-forcing mechanism is used to drive the
> >>> full-system-idle state machine, and because this mechanism is executed
> >>> by RCU's grace-period kthreads, this commit forces these kthreads to
> >>> run on the timekeeping CPU (tick_do_timer_cpu). To do otherwise would
> >>> mean that the RCU grace-period kthreads would force the system into
> >>> non-idle state every time they drove the state machine, which would
> >>> be just a bit on the futile side.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> >>> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> >>> ---
> >>> kernel/rcutree.c | 1 +
> >>> kernel/rcutree.h | 1 +
> >>> kernel/rcutree_plugin.h | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> >>> 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> >>> index aa6d96e..fe83085 100644
> >>> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> >>> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> >>> @@ -1286,6 +1286,7 @@ static int rcu_gp_init(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> >>> struct rcu_data *rdp;
> >>> struct rcu_node *rnp = rcu_get_root(rsp);
> >>>
> >>> + rcu_bind_gp_kthread();
> >>> raw_spin_lock_irq(&rnp->lock);
> >>> rsp->gp_flags = 0; /* Clear all flags: New grace period. */
> >>
> >> bind the gp thread when RCU_GP_FLAG_INIT ...
> >>
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.h b/kernel/rcutree.h
> >>> index e0de5dc..49dac99 100644
> >>> --- a/kernel/rcutree.h
> >>> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.h
> >>> @@ -560,6 +560,7 @@ static void rcu_sysidle_check_cpu(struct rcu_data *rdp, bool *isidle,
> >>> static bool is_sysidle_rcu_state(struct rcu_state *rsp);
> >>> static void rcu_sysidle_report_gp(struct rcu_state *rsp, int isidle,
> >>> unsigned long maxj);
> >>> +static void rcu_bind_gp_kthread(void);
> >>> static void rcu_sysidle_init_percpu_data(struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp);
> >>>
> >>> #endif /* #ifndef RCU_TREE_NONCORE */
> >>> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> >>> index ff84bed..f65d9c2 100644
> >>> --- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> >>> +++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> >>> @@ -2544,7 +2544,7 @@ static void rcu_sysidle_check_cpu(struct rcu_data *rdp, bool *isidle,
> >>> if (!*isidle || rdp->rsp != rcu_sysidle_state ||
> >>> cpu_is_offline(rdp->cpu) || rdp->cpu == tick_do_timer_cpu)
> >>> return;
> >>> - /* WARN_ON_ONCE(smp_processor_id() != tick_do_timer_cpu); */
> >>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(smp_processor_id() != tick_do_timer_cpu);
> >>
> >>
> >> but call rcu_sysidle_check_cpu() when RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS.
> >
> > Yep! But we don't call rcu_gp_fqs() until the grace period is started,
> > by which time the kthread will be bound. Any setting of RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS
> > while there is no grace period in progress is ignored.
>
> tick_do_timer_cpu can be changed.
> when rcu_gp_fqs() is called, the tick_do_timer_cpu may be a different CPU.
>
> xxx_thread()
> {
> bind itself to tick_do_timer_cpu.
> sleep(); /* tick_do_timer_cpu can be changed while this */
> use wrong tick_do_timer_cpu.
> }
Yes, but Frederic's patches currently disable changing of tick_do_timer_cpu.
He said that he will re-enable this at some point, and he and I will need
to coordinate that change to allow RCU to tolerate tick_do_timer_cpu
migration.
Thanx, Paul
> >> In this time, the thread may not be bound to tick_do_timer_cpu,
> >> the WARN_ON_ONCE() may be wrong.
> >>
> >> Does any other code ensure the gp thread bound on tick_do_timer_cpu
> >> which I missed?
> >
> > However, on small systems, rcu_sysidle_check_cpu() can be called from
> > the timekeeping CPU. I suppose that this could potentially happen
> > before the first grace period starts, and in that case, we could
> > potentially see a spurious warning. I could imagine a number of ways
> > to fix this:
> >
> > 1. Bind the kthread when it is created.
> >
> > 2. Bind the kthread when it first starts running, rather than just
> > after the grace period starts.
> >
> > 3. Suppress the warning when there is no grace period in progress.
> >
> > 4. Suppress the warning prior to the first grace period starting.
> >
> > Seems like #3 is the most straightforward approach. I just change it to:
> >
> > if (rcu_gp_in_progress(rdp->rsp))
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(smp_processor_id() != tick_do_timer_cpu);
> >
> > This still gets a WARN_ON_ONCE() if someone moves the timekeeping CPU,
> > but Frederic tells me that it never moves. My WARN_ON_ONCE() has some
> > probability of complaining should some bug creep in.
> >
> > Sound reasonable?
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> >>> /* Pick up current idle and NMI-nesting counter and check. */
> >>> cur = atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks_idle);
> >>> @@ -2570,6 +2570,20 @@ static bool is_sysidle_rcu_state(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> /*
> >>> + * Bind the grace-period kthread for the sysidle flavor of RCU to the
> >>> + * timekeeping CPU.
> >>> + */
> >>> +static void rcu_bind_gp_kthread(void)
> >>> +{
> >>> + int cpu = ACCESS_ONCE(tick_do_timer_cpu);
> >>> +
> >>> + if (cpu < 0 || cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
> >>> + return;
> >>> + if (raw_smp_processor_id() != cpu)
> >>> + set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(cpu));
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +/*
> >>> * Return a delay in jiffies based on the number of CPUs, rcu_node
> >>> * leaf fanout, and jiffies tick rate. The idea is to allow larger
> >>> * systems more time to transition to full-idle state in order to
> >>> @@ -2767,6 +2781,10 @@ static bool is_sysidle_rcu_state(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> >>> return false;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> +static void rcu_bind_gp_kthread(void)
> >>> +{
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> static void rcu_sysidle_report_gp(struct rcu_state *rsp, int isidle,
> >>> unsigned long maxj)
> >>> {
> >>
> >
> >
>
--
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