Message-ID: <20141124223407.GB8512@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:34:07 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] x86, traps: Track entry into and exit from IST
 context

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 01:35:01PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 01:02:51PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:22:13PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > >> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 09:53:29PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > >> >> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >> >> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 06:00:14PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > >> >> >> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Returning state sounds like a bad idea, if we can reasonably avoid it.
> > >>
> > >> I agree, except that we already do it for exception_enter(), etc.  But
> > >> yes, changing fewer things is nice.
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > And I think I finally see what you are pointing out about my code: If
> > >> > another NMI comes in between the time I increment ->dynticks_nmi_nesting
> > >> > and the time I atomically increment ->dynticks, the nested NMI handler
> > >> > will incorrectly believe that RCU is already paying attention to this CPU.
> > >> > Which would indeed not be at all good, so good catch!!!
> > >> >
> > >> >> Otherwise, I think that there may need to be enough state somewhere so
> > >> >> that the outermost nested rcu_nmi_enter knows whether to increment
> > >> >> dynticks.  For example, dynticks_nmi_nesting could store the nesting
> > >> >> count * 2 - (1 if the outermost nested user needs to increment
> > >> >> dynticks).  Something like:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> void rcu_nmi_enter(void)
> > >> >> {
> > >> >>   /* Be very careful -- this function may be called reentrently on the
> > >> >> same CPU. */
> > >> >>   atomically: increment dynticks if it's even.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>   /* If an rcu_nmi_enter/rcu_nmi_exit pair happens here, then it will not change
> > >> >>    * the state. */
> > >> >>
> > >> >>   local_inc(&dynticks_nmi_nesting, (we incremented dynticks ? 1 : 2));
> > >> >>
> > >> >>   WARN_ON(we incremented dynticks and dynticks_nmi_nesting was nonzero);
> > >> >> }
> > >> >>
> > >> >> void rcu_nmi_exit(void)
> > >> >> {
> > >> >>   WARN_ON(!(dynticks & 1));
> > >> >>   locally atomically: dynticks_nmi_nesting -= 2, unless
> > >> >> dynticks_nmi_nesting == 1, in which case set it to zero
> > >> >>
> > >> >>   if (dynticks_nmi_nesting was 1)
> > >> >>     atomic_inc(&dynticks);
> > >> >> }
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The invariant here is that, for a single unnested enter/exit, if
> > >> >> dynticks_nmi_nesting != 0, then dynticks is odd.  As a result, an
> > >> >> rcu_nmi_enter/rcu_nmi_exit pair at any time when dynticks_nmi_nesting
> > >> >> != 0 *or* dynticks is odd will have no net effect, so the invariant,
> > >> >> in fact, holds for all invocations, nested or otherwise.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> At least one of those conditions is true at all times during the
> > >> >> execution of outermost pair, starting with the first atomic operation
> > >> >> and ending with the final atomic_inc.  So they nest properly no matter
> > >> >> what else happens (unless, of course, someone else pokes dynticks in
> > >> >> the middle).
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Thoughts?
> > >> >
> > >> > Let's see...  The evenness of ->dynticks should be preserved by nested NMI
> > >> > handlers, so the check and increment need not be atomic.  We don't have
> > >> > any way (other than atomic operations) to do local atomic modifications
> > >> > on all architectures, because we cannot mask NMIs.  (Yes, it can work
> > >> > on x86, but this is common code that needs to work everywhere.)  On the
> > >> > other hand, presumably NMIs are rare, so atomic modification of the NMI
> > >> > nesting counter should be OK, at least if it proves absolutely necessary.
> > >> > And I am thinking that a mechanical proof will be needed here.  :-/
> > >> >
> > >> > But first, let me try generating the code and informally evaluating it:
> > >> >
> > >> >          1   struct rcu_dynticks {
> > >> >          2     long long dynticks_nesting;
> > >> >          3     int dynticks_nmi_nesting;
> > >> >          4     atomic_t dynticks;
> > >> >          5   };
> > >> >          6
> > >> >          7   void rcu_nmi_enter(void)
> > >> >          8   {
> > >> >          9     struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_dynticks);
> > >> >         10     int incby = 2;
> > >> >         11
> > >> >         12     if (!(atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1)) {
> > >> >         13       smp_mb__before_atomic();
> > >> >         14       atomic_inc(&rdtp->dynticks);
> > >> >         15       smp_mb__after_atomic();
> > >> >         16       WARN_ON_ONCE(!(atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1));
> > >> >         17       incby = 1;
> > >>
> > >> WARN_ON_ONCE(rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting < 1) here, perhaps?
> > >
> > > That would make sense.
> > >
> > >> >         18     }
> > >> >         19     rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting += incby;
> > >>
> > >> Oh, I see why you don't need local_add -- it's because an nmi in the
> > >> middle of this increment won't have any effect on the interrupted
> > >> code, so even a software RMW will be okay.
> > >
> > > Yep!  ;-)
> > >
> > >> >         20     barrier();
> > >> >         21   }
> > >> >         22
> > >> >         23   void rcu_nmi_exit(void)
> > >> >         24   {
> > >> >         25     struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_dynticks);
> > >> >         26
> > >> >         27     WARN_ON_ONCE(!rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting);
> > >> >         28     WARN_ON_ONCE(!(atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1));
> > >> >         29     if (rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting != 1) {
> > >>
> > >> WARN_ON_ONCE(rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting < 2), perhaps?
> > >
> > > This is already implied by the WARN_ON_ONCE() on line 27 and the check
> > > on line 29.
> > 
> > I was worried about negative numbers.  Maybe change line 27 to
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting <= 0), then?  (Or is it
> > unsigned?  If so, let's make to signed to catch this type of error.)
> 
> Good point, they are signed, so your WARN_ON_ONCE() would work.
> 
> > >> >         30       rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting -= 2;
> > >> >         31       return;
> > >> >         32     }
> > >> >         33     rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting = 0;
> > >> >         34     smp_mb__before_atomic();
> > >>
> > >> This implies barrier(), right?
> > >
> > > Yep!
> > >
> > >> >         35     atomic_inc(&rdtp->dynticks);
> > >> >         36     smp_mb__after_atomic();
> > >> >         37     WARN_ON_ONCE(atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1);
> > >> >         38   }
> > >> >
> > >> > Line 9 picks up a pointer to this CPU's rcu_dynticks structure and line 10
> > >> > assumes that we don't need to increment ->dynticks.
> > >> >
> > >> > Line 12 checks to see if ->dynticks is even.  Note that this check is
> > >> > stable: If there are nested NMIs, they will increment ->dynticks twice
> > >> > or not at all, and either way preserves the evenness (to be proven, of
> > >> > course, but that is the plan).  If ->dynticks is even, lines 13-15
> > >> > atomically increment it, line 16 complains if still even, and line 17
> > >> > says we will increment ->dynticks_nmi_nesting by only 1.
> > >> >
> > >> > Either way, line 19 increments ->dynticks_nmi_nesting as needed and
> > >> > line 20 keeps the compiler from getting too cute.
> > >> >
> > >> > For rcu_nmi_exit(), line 25 again picks up this CPUs rcu_dynticks
> > >> > structure.  Lines 27 and 28 complain bitterly if invariants are violated.
> > >> > If line 29 finds that the value of ->dynticks_nmi_nesting is not 1,
> > >> > then line 30 subtracts 2 from ->dynticks_nmi_nesting and line 31 returns.
> > >> >
> > >> > Otherwise, line 33 sets ->dynticks_nmi_nesting to zero, lines 34-36
> > >> > atomically increment ->dynticks with full ordering, and line 37
> > >> > complains bitterly if ->dynticks is not even.
> > >> >
> > >> > So, if an NMI occurs before rcu_nmi_enter's atomic increment, then the
> > >> > nested NMI's rcu_nmi_enter() and rcu_nmi_exit() will think that they are
> > >> > not nested, which is the correct thing for them to think in that case.
> > >> > They will increment ->dynticks twice and restore ->dynticks_nmi_nesting
> > >> > to zero (adding and then subtracting 1).  If the NMI happens after the
> > >> > atomic increment, then the nested rcu_nmi_enter() and rcu_nmi_exit()
> > >> > will leave ->dynticks alone, and will restore ->dynticks_nmi_nesting
> > >> > to zero (adding and subtracting two again).  If the NMI happens after
> > >> > the increment of ->dynticks_nmi_nesting, the nested NMI's rcu_nmi_enter()
> > >> > and rcu_nmi_exit() will again restore ->dynticks_nmi_nesting, but this
> > >> > time to one (again adding and subtracting two).
> > >> >
> > >> > In rcu_nmi_exit(), ->dynticks_nmi_nesting of zero had better not happen,
> > >> > one means we need to atomically increment ->dynticks, and other values
> > >> > mean that we are partially or fully nested.  Reasoning proceeds as for
> > >> > rcu_nmi_enter(), but in the opposite direction.
> > >> >
> > >> > Whew!  That might even work.
> > >>
> > >> I think I like this, with the warnings above.
> > >
> > > OK with dropping the one that I called out as redundant?
> > 
> > Sure, but see about.
> > 
> > >
> > >> > But how about taking a different approach.  Assuming that there can
> > >> > never be more than (say) 14 nesting NMI-like things, use the lower
> > >> > four bits of ->dynticks to represent the NMI nesting and the upper
> > >> > 28 bits as the counter.  This of course requires modifying lots of
> > >> > places in RCU that check the counter, but it is probably time to
> > >> > abstract the check anyway.
> > >> >
> > >> > This would allow my earlier attempted logic to work and (maybe) simplify
> > >> > the reasoning a bit (and yes, the "magic" constants need macros):
> > >> >
> > >> >         void rcu_nmi_enter(void)
> > >> >         {
> > >> >                 struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_dynticks);
> > >> >                 int nesting = atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0xf;
> > >> >                 int incby = 0x01;
> > >> >
> > >> >                 WARN_ON_ONCE(nexting == 0xf);
> > >> >                 if (nesting == 0) {
> > >> >                         if (atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x10)
> > >> >                                 return;
> > >> >                         incby = 0x11;
> > >> >                 }
> > >> >                 smp_mb__before_atomic();
> > >> >                 atomic_add(&rdtp->dynticks, incby);
> > >> >                 smp_mb__after_atomic();
> > >> >                 WARN_ON_ONCE(!(atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1));
> > >> >         }
> > >> >
> > >> >         void rcu_nmi_exit(void)
> > >> >         {
> > >> >                 struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_dynticks);
> > >> >                 int nesting = atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0xf;
> > >> >                 int incby = 0x0f;
> > >> >
> > >> >                 if (nesting == 0)
> > >> >                         return;
> > >> >                 if (nesting > 1)
> > >> >                         incby = -1;
> > >> >                 smp_mb__before_atomic();
> > >> >                 atomic_add(&rdtp->dynticks, incby);
> > >> >                 smp_mb__after_atomic();
> > >> >                 WARN_ON_ONCE(atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1);
> > >> >         }
> > >> >
> > >> > Over to you!  ;-)
> > >>
> > >> This latter one is all you :)
> > >
> > > Well, let's see how I feel about it after trying a Promela model of
> > > the first code sequence.  ;-)
> > 
> > :)
> > 
> > Does Promela understand the differences between this type of
> > reentrancy and real threading?
> 
> Not as far as I know.  But it can be tricked into making this distinction.
> One thread just has the Promela code as is, and the other thread has
> the same Promela code entirely contained in an atomic block.  This means
> that the entire second thread must executed at one point in the first
> thread, just like an NMI would.

And the following Promela model claims that your approach works.
Should I trust it?  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

/*
 * Promela model for Andy Lutomirski's suggested change to rcu_nmi_enter()
 * that allows nesting.
 *
 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 *
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 *
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program; if not, you can access it online at
 * http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html.
 *
 * Copyright IBM Corporation, 2014
 *
 * Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
 */

byte dynticks_nesting;
byte dynticks_nmi_nesting;
byte dynticks;
byte busy;

/*
 * Promela verision of rcu_nmi_enter().
 */
inline rcu_nmi_enter()
{
	assert(dynticks_nmi_nesting >= 0);
	if
	:: (dynticks & 1) == 0 ->
		atomic {
			dynticks = dynticks + 1;
		}
		assert((dynticks & 1) == 1);
		dynticks_nmi_nesting = dynticks_nmi_nesting + 1;
		assert(dynticks_nmi_nesting >= 1);
	:: else ->
		dynticks_nmi_nesting = dynticks_nmi_nesting + 2;
	fi;
}

/*
 * Promela verision of rcu_nmi_exit().
 */
inline rcu_nmi_exit()
{
	assert(dynticks_nmi_nesting > 0);
	assert((dynticks & 1) != 0);
	if
	:: dynticks_nmi_nesting != 1 ->
		dynticks_nmi_nesting = dynticks_nmi_nesting - 2;
	:: else ->
		dynticks_nmi_nesting = 0;
		atomic {
			dynticks = dynticks + 1;
		}
		assert((dynticks & 1) == 0);
	fi;
}

/*
 * Base-level NMI runs non-atomically.  Crudely emulates process-level
 * dynticks-idle entry/exit.
 */
proctype base_NMI()
{
	do
	::	if
		:: 1 ->	atomic {
				dynticks = dynticks + 1;
			}
			busy = 0;
		:: 1 ->	skip;
		fi;
		rcu_nmi_enter();
		assert((dynticks & 1) == 1);
		rcu_nmi_exit();
		if
		:: busy -> skip;
		:: !busy ->
			atomic {
				dynticks = dynticks + 1;
			}
			busy = 1;
		fi;
	od;
}

/*
 * Nested NMI runs atomically to emulate interrupting base_level().
 */
proctype nested_NMI()
{
	do
	::	atomic {
			rcu_nmi_enter();
			assert((dynticks & 1) == 1);
			rcu_nmi_exit();
		}
	od;
}

init {
	dynticks_nesting = 0;
	dynticks_nmi_nesting = 0;
	dynticks = 0;
	busy = 0;
	run base_NMI();
	run nested_NMI();
}

--
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