linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/12] rcu: Panic if RCU tree can not accommodate all CPUs

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150731155343.GP27280@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:53:43 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
	jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
	fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com,
	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/12] rcu: Panic if RCU tree can not
 accommodate all CPUs

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 06:22:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 08:54:54AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > Good point, and it already does, and I clearly was confused, apologies.
> > 
> > So the real way to make this happen is (for example) to build
> > with CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT=2 and CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF=16 (the
> > default), which could accommodate up to 128 CPUs.  Then boot with
> > rcutree.rcu_fanout_leaf=2 on a system with more than 16 CPUs, with
> > rcutree.rcu_fanout_leaf=3 on a system with more than 24 CPUs, and so on.
> 
> Ah, runtime overrides and operator error, but then we can WARN(), reset
> the arguments and try again, right? No need to panic the machine and
> fail to boot.

Good point, like the patch below?  Which also legitimizes my
example after the fact, as it previously simply prohibited having
rcutree.rcu_fanout_leaf less than CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF.  :-/

> > Of course, the truly macho way to get this error message is to build
> > with CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT=64 and CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF=64, then boot with
> > rcutree.rcu_fanout_leaf=63 on a system with more than 16,515,072 CPUs.
> > Of course, you get serious style points if the system manages to stay
> > up for more than 24 hours without a hardware failure.  ;-)
> 
> Yes, I'll go power up the nuclear reactor in the basement first :-)

Only one?  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

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

    rcu: Eliminate panic when silly boot-time fanout specified
    
    This commit loosens rcutree.rcu_fanout_leaf range checks
    and replaces a panic() with a fallback to compile-time values.
    This fallback is accompanied by a WARN_ON(), and both occur when the
    rcutree.rcu_fanout_leaf value is too small to accommodate the number of
    CPUs.  For example, given the current four-level limit for the rcu_node
    tree, a system with more than 16 CPUs built with CONFIG_FANOUT=2 must
    have rcutree.rcu_fanout_leaf larger than 2.
    
    Reported-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
    Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
index 01b5b68a237a..2a5d4696bdb9 100644
--- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
+++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
@@ -3059,9 +3059,12 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted.
 			cache-to-cache transfer latencies.
 
 	rcutree.rcu_fanout_leaf= [KNL]
-			Increase the number of CPUs assigned to each
-			leaf rcu_node structure.  Useful for very large
-			systems.
+			Change the number of CPUs assigned to each
+			leaf rcu_node structure.  Useful for very
+			large systems, which will choose the value 64,
+			and for NUMA systems with large remote-access
+			latencies, which will choose a value aligned
+			with the appropriate hardware boundaries.
 
 	rcutree.jiffies_till_sched_qs= [KNL]
 			Set required age in jiffies for a
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index ce43fac5ff91..9f8040396d3e 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -4216,13 +4216,12 @@ static void __init rcu_init_geometry(void)
 		rcu_fanout_leaf, nr_cpu_ids);
 
 	/*
-	 * The boot-time rcu_fanout_leaf parameter is only permitted
-	 * to increase the leaf-level fanout, not decrease it.  Of course,
-	 * the leaf-level fanout cannot exceed the number of bits in
-	 * the rcu_node masks.  Complain and fall back to the compile-
-	 * time values if these limits are exceeded.
+	 * The boot-time rcu_fanout_leaf parameter must be at least two
+	 * and cannot exceed the number of bits in the rcu_node masks.
+	 * Complain and fall back to the compile-time values if this
+	 * limit is exceeded.
 	 */
-	if (rcu_fanout_leaf < RCU_FANOUT_LEAF ||
+	if (rcu_fanout_leaf < 2 ||
 	    rcu_fanout_leaf > sizeof(unsigned long) * 8) {
 		rcu_fanout_leaf = RCU_FANOUT_LEAF;
 		WARN_ON(1);
@@ -4239,10 +4238,13 @@ static void __init rcu_init_geometry(void)
 
 	/*
 	 * The tree must be able to accommodate the configured number of CPUs.
-	 * If this limit is exceeded than we have a serious problem elsewhere.
+	 * If this limit is exceeded, fall back to the compile-time values.
 	 */
-	if (nr_cpu_ids > rcu_capacity[RCU_NUM_LVLS - 1])
-		panic("rcu_init_geometry: rcu_capacity[] is too small");
+	if (nr_cpu_ids > rcu_capacity[RCU_NUM_LVLS - 1]) {
+		rcu_fanout_leaf = RCU_FANOUT_LEAF;
+		WARN_ON(1);
+		return;
+	}
 
 	/* Calculate the number of levels in the tree. */
 	for (i = 0; nr_cpu_ids > rcu_capacity[i]; i++) {

--
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/