Date:   Tue,  6 Jun 2017 10:07:26 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.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,
        fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 tip/core/rcu 1/2] srcu: Allow use of Tiny/Tree SRCU from both process and interrupt context

From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>

Linu Cherian reported a WARN in cleanup_srcu_struct() when shutting
down a guest running iperf on a VFIO assigned device.  This happens
because irqfd_wakeup() calls srcu_read_lock(&kvm->irq_srcu) in interrupt
context, while a worker thread does the same inside kvm_set_irq().  If the
interrupt happens while the worker thread is executing __srcu_read_lock(),
updates to the Classic SRCU ->lock_count[] field or the Tree SRCU
->srcu_lock_count[] field can be lost.

The docs say you are not supposed to call srcu_read_lock() and
srcu_read_unlock() from irq context, but KVM interrupt injection happens
from (host) interrupt context and it would be nice if SRCU supported the
use case.  KVM is using SRCU here not really for the "sleepable" part,
but rather due to its IPI-free fast detection of grace periods.  It is
therefore not desirable to switch back to RCU, which would effectively
revert commit 719d93cd5f5c ("kvm/irqchip: Speed up KVM_SET_GSI_ROUTING",
2014-01-16).

However, the docs are overly conservative.  You can have an SRCU instance
only has users in irq context, and you can mix process and irq context
as long as process context users disable interrupts.  In addition,
__srcu_read_unlock() actually uses this_cpu_dec() on both Tree SRCU and
Classic SRCU.  For those two implementations, only srcu_read_lock()
is unsafe.

When Classic SRCU's __srcu_read_unlock() was changed to use this_cpu_dec(),
in commit 5a41344a3d83 ("srcu: Simplify __srcu_read_unlock() via
this_cpu_dec()", 2012-11-29), __srcu_read_lock() did two increments.
Therefore it kept __this_cpu_inc(), with preempt_disable/enable in
the caller.  Tree SRCU however only does one increment, so on most
architectures it is more efficient for __srcu_read_lock() to use
this_cpu_inc(), and any performance differences appear to be down in
the noise.

Unlike Classic and Tree SRCU, Tiny SRCU does increments and decrements on
a single variable.  Therefore, as Peter Zijlstra pointed out, Tiny SRCU's
implementation already supports mixed-context use of srcu_read_lock()
and srcu_read_unlock(), at least as long as uses of srcu_read_lock()
and srcu_read_unlock() in each handler are nested and paired properly.
In other words, it is still illegal to (say) invoke srcu_read_lock()
in an interrupt handler and to invoke the matching srcu_read_unlock()
in a softirq handler.  Therefore, the only change required for Tiny SRCU
is to its comments.

Fixes: 719d93cd5f5c ("kvm/irqchip: Speed up KVM_SET_GSI_ROUTING")
Reported-by: Linu Cherian <linuc.decode@...il.com>
Suggested-by: Linu Cherian <linuc.decode@...il.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c | 7 ++++---
 kernel/rcu/srcutree.c | 5 ++---
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c
index 36e1f82faed1..32798eb14853 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c
@@ -97,8 +97,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cleanup_srcu_struct);
 
 /*
  * Counts the new reader in the appropriate per-CPU element of the
- * srcu_struct.  Must be called from process context.
- * Returns an index that must be passed to the matching srcu_read_unlock().
+ * srcu_struct.  Can be invoked from irq/bh handlers, but the matching
+ * __srcu_read_unlock() must be in the same handler instance.  Returns an
+ * index that must be passed to the matching srcu_read_unlock().
  */
 int __srcu_read_lock(struct srcu_struct *sp)
 {
@@ -112,7 +113,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__srcu_read_lock);
 
 /*
  * Removes the count for the old reader from the appropriate element of
- * the srcu_struct.  Must be called from process context.
+ * the srcu_struct.
  */
 void __srcu_read_unlock(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx)
 {
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
index 3ae8474557df..157654fa436a 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
@@ -357,7 +357,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cleanup_srcu_struct);
 
 /*
  * Counts the new reader in the appropriate per-CPU element of the
- * srcu_struct.  Must be called from process context.
+ * srcu_struct.
  * Returns an index that must be passed to the matching srcu_read_unlock().
  */
 int __srcu_read_lock(struct srcu_struct *sp)
@@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ int __srcu_read_lock(struct srcu_struct *sp)
 	int idx;
 
 	idx = READ_ONCE(sp->srcu_idx) & 0x1;
-	__this_cpu_inc(sp->sda->srcu_lock_count[idx]);
+	this_cpu_inc(sp->sda->srcu_lock_count[idx]);
 	smp_mb(); /* B */  /* Avoid leaking the critical section. */
 	return idx;
 }
@@ -375,7 +375,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__srcu_read_lock);
  * Removes the count for the old reader from the appropriate per-CPU
  * element of the srcu_struct.  Note that this may well be a different
  * CPU than that which was incremented by the corresponding srcu_read_lock().
- * Must be called from process context.
  */
 void __srcu_read_unlock(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx)
 {
-- 
2.5.2

Powered by blists - more mailing lists