| 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: <20140829131144.GS5001@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 06:11:44 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
dvhart@...ux.intel.com, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
bobby.prani@...il.com, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] Eliminate deadlock between CPU hotplug
and expedited grace periods
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 02:54:54PM +0800, Lan Tianyu wrote:
> On 2014年08月29日 03:47, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Currently, the expedited grace-period primitives do get_online_cpus().
> > This greatly simplifies their implementation, but means that calls to
> > them holding locks that are acquired by CPU-hotplug notifiers (to say
> > nothing of calls to these primitives from CPU-hotplug notifiers) can
> > deadlock. But this is starting to become inconvenient:
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/5/754
> >
> > This commit avoids the deadlock and retains the simplicity by creating
> > a try_get_online_cpus(), which returns false if the get_online_cpus()
> > reference count could not immediately be incremented. If a call to
> > try_get_online_cpus() returns true, the expedited primitives operate
> > as before. If a call returns false, the expedited primitives fall back
> > to normal grace-period operations. This falling back of course results
> > in increased grace-period latency, but only during times when CPU
> > hotplug operations are actually in flight. The effect should therefore
> > be negligible during normal operation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
> > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
> > Cc: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>
> >
>
> Hi Paul:
> I tested this patch and it fixes my issue. Thanks.
>
> Tested-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>
Glad it worked for you, and thank you for your testing efforts!
Thanx, Paul
> > diff --git a/include/linux/cpu.h b/include/linux/cpu.h
> > index 95978ad7fcdd..b2d9a43012b2 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/cpu.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/cpu.h
> > @@ -213,6 +213,7 @@ extern struct bus_type cpu_subsys;
> > extern void cpu_hotplug_begin(void);
> > extern void cpu_hotplug_done(void);
> > extern void get_online_cpus(void);
> > +extern bool try_get_online_cpus(void);
> > extern void put_online_cpus(void);
> > extern void cpu_hotplug_disable(void);
> > extern void cpu_hotplug_enable(void);
> > @@ -230,6 +231,7 @@ int cpu_down(unsigned int cpu);
> > static inline void cpu_hotplug_begin(void) {}
> > static inline void cpu_hotplug_done(void) {}
> > #define get_online_cpus() do { } while (0)
> > +#define try_get_online_cpus() true
> > #define put_online_cpus() do { } while (0)
> > #define cpu_hotplug_disable() do { } while (0)
> > #define cpu_hotplug_enable() do { } while (0)
> > diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> > index 008388f920d7..4f86465cc317 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/lockdep.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> > @@ -505,6 +505,7 @@ static inline void print_irqtrace_events(struct task_struct *curr)
> >
> > #define lock_map_acquire(l) lock_acquire_exclusive(l, 0, 0, NULL, _THIS_IP_)
> > #define lock_map_acquire_read(l) lock_acquire_shared_recursive(l, 0, 0, NULL, _THIS_IP_)
> > +#define lock_map_acquire_tryread(l) lock_acquire_shared_recursive(l, 0, 1, NULL, _THIS_IP_)
> > #define lock_map_release(l) lock_release(l, 1, _THIS_IP_)
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> > diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> > index 81e2a388a0f6..356450f09c1f 100644
> > --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> > +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> > @@ -79,6 +79,8 @@ static struct {
> >
> > /* Lockdep annotations for get/put_online_cpus() and cpu_hotplug_begin/end() */
> > #define cpuhp_lock_acquire_read() lock_map_acquire_read(&cpu_hotplug.dep_map)
> > +#define cpuhp_lock_acquire_tryread() \
> > + lock_map_acquire_tryread(&cpu_hotplug.dep_map)
> > #define cpuhp_lock_acquire() lock_map_acquire(&cpu_hotplug.dep_map)
> > #define cpuhp_lock_release() lock_map_release(&cpu_hotplug.dep_map)
> >
> > @@ -91,10 +93,22 @@ void get_online_cpus(void)
> > mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > cpu_hotplug.refcount++;
> > mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > -
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(get_online_cpus);
> >
> > +bool try_get_online_cpus(void)
> > +{
> > + if (cpu_hotplug.active_writer == current)
> > + return true;
> > + if (!mutex_trylock(&cpu_hotplug.lock))
> > + return false;
> > + cpuhp_lock_acquire_tryread();
> > + cpu_hotplug.refcount++;
> > + mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > + return true;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(try_get_online_cpus);
> > +
> > void put_online_cpus(void)
> > {
> > if (cpu_hotplug.active_writer == current)
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index d7a3b13bc94c..04558f0c9d64 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -2940,11 +2940,6 @@ static int synchronize_sched_expedited_cpu_stop(void *data)
> > * restructure your code to batch your updates, and then use a single
> > * synchronize_sched() instead.
> > *
> > - * Note that it is illegal to call this function while holding any lock
> > - * that is acquired by a CPU-hotplug notifier. And yes, it is also illegal
> > - * to call this function from a CPU-hotplug notifier. Failing to observe
> > - * these restriction will result in deadlock.
> > - *
> > * This implementation can be thought of as an application of ticket
> > * locking to RCU, with sync_sched_expedited_started and
> > * sync_sched_expedited_done taking on the roles of the halves
> > @@ -2994,7 +2989,12 @@ void synchronize_sched_expedited(void)
> > */
> > snap = atomic_long_inc_return(&rsp->expedited_start);
> > firstsnap = snap;
> > - get_online_cpus();
> > + if (!try_get_online_cpus()) {
> > + /* CPU hotplug operation in flight, fall back to normal GP. */
> > + wait_rcu_gp(call_rcu_sched);
> > + atomic_long_inc(&rsp->expedited_normal);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu_is_offline(raw_smp_processor_id()));
> >
> > /*
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > index fb833811c2f6..821dcf9a3b94 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > @@ -793,11 +793,6 @@ sync_rcu_preempt_exp_init(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp)
> > * In fact, if you are using synchronize_rcu_expedited() in a loop,
> > * please restructure your code to batch your updates, and then Use a
> > * single synchronize_rcu() instead.
> > - *
> > - * Note that it is illegal to call this function while holding any lock
> > - * that is acquired by a CPU-hotplug notifier. And yes, it is also illegal
> > - * to call this function from a CPU-hotplug notifier. Failing to observe
> > - * these restriction will result in deadlock.
> > */
> > void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void)
> > {
> > @@ -819,7 +814,11 @@ void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void)
> > * being boosted. This simplifies the process of moving tasks
> > * from leaf to root rcu_node structures.
> > */
> > - get_online_cpus();
> > + if (!try_get_online_cpus()) {
> > + /* CPU-hotplug operation in flight, fall back to normal GP. */
> > + wait_rcu_gp(call_rcu);
> > + return;
> > + }
> >
> > /*
> > * Acquire lock, falling back to synchronize_rcu() if too many
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards
> Tianyu Lan
>
--
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