linux-kernel - Re: [patch 59/66] rcu: Convert rcutree to hotplug state machine

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160819201200.warurd7e7t7uiggg@linutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 19 Aug 2016 22:12:00 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@...akpoint.cc>,
        Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 59/66] rcu: Convert rcutree to hotplug state machine

On 2016-08-18 11:30:13 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> > > @@ -882,6 +882,7 @@ void notify_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu)
> > >  	struct cpuhp_cpu_state *st = per_cpu_ptr(&cpuhp_state, cpu);
> > >  	enum cpuhp_state target = min((int)st->target, CPUHP_AP_ONLINE);
> > >  
> > > +	rcu_cpu_starting(cpu);  /* All CPU_STARTING notifiers can use RCU. */
> > >  	while (st->state < target) {
> > >  		struct cpuhp_step *step;
> > 
> > What happens if something post CPUHP_AP_ONLINE fails and we do a
> > rollback to 0? Do we need to revert / undo rcu_cpu_starting() doing?
> 
> Yes, by calling rcu_cleanup_dying_idle_cpu().

Thank you for that :)
 
> But please note that rcu_cpu_starting() is invoked from the CPU itself
> during the onlining process.  Is it really possible to fail beyond
> that point?

"sure". We enter here at CPUHP_BRINGUP_CPU. The next states until
(approx) CPUHP_AP_ONLINE are currently defined as "can't fail". As you
see in notify_cpu_starting() the return code of cpuhp_invoke_callback()
isn't checked and there is no rollback.
Later, CPUHP_AP_SMPBOOT_THREADS could fail (not in current but from here
on we no longer the return code). At this point we would return to where
we started (CPUHP_OFFLINE is most cases). During the rollback we get to
rcu_cleanup_dying_idle_cpu() via rcu_report_dead() so that is fine.

> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > index 3121242b8579..5e7c1d6a6108 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > @@ -3793,8 +3793,6 @@ rcu_init_percpu_data(int cpu, struct rcu_state *rsp)
> > >  	rnp = rdp->mynode;
> > >  	mask = rdp->grpmask;
> > >  	raw_spin_lock_rcu_node(rnp);		/* irqs already disabled. */
> > > -	rnp->qsmaskinitnext |= mask;
> > > -	rnp->expmaskinitnext |= mask;
> > >  	if (!rdp->beenonline)
> > >  		WRITE_ONCE(rsp->ncpus, READ_ONCE(rsp->ncpus) + 1);
> > >  	rdp->beenonline = true;	 /* We have now been online. */
> > > @@ -4211,8 +4235,10 @@ void __init rcu_init(void)
> > >  	 */
> > >  	cpu_notifier(rcu_cpu_notify, 0);
> > >  	pm_notifier(rcu_pm_notify, 0);
> > > -	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> > > +	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > >  		rcu_cpu_notify(NULL, CPU_UP_PREPARE, (void *)(long)cpu);
> > > +		rcu_cpu_starting(cpu);
> > > +	}
> > 
> > and looking at this from x86-64 then at this point I have CPU0 online
> > and all other are down (or not yet up). So this is invoked for one CPU
> > only. And later via hotplug callbacks for the other CPUs.
> 
> Yes, that is the current situation.  The reason for the loop is in
> case someone clever decides to online other CPUs before RCU initializes
> itself.  No idea how anyone would make that sort of thing work, but I
> have learned not to underestimate the creativity of the fast-boot guys.

doubt this would work. start_kernel() is invoked from the boot CPU.
Other CPUs are usually down because the scheduler wasn't up yet (so they
can't idle in their idle thread nor could they be marked "online" in the
CPU mask). Later (rest_init() -> kernel_init() ->
kernel_init_freeable()) there is smp_init() which boots the additional
CPUs.

> And please do not invoke rcu_cpu_starting() before rcu_init(), at least
> not without some careful inspection and likely reworking of rcu_init()
> and the things that it calls.

I did not intend to. I was thinking about moving it to
CPUHP_AP_RCUTREE_DYING but since the teardown method does not match it
makes no sense.
Thank you for clarifying the counterpart of rcu_cpu_starting().

> 							Thanx, Paul

Sebastian