Date:   Wed, 1 Aug 2018 23:08:23 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nohz: Fix missing tick reprog while interrupting inline
 timer softirq

On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 07:46:10PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Before updating the full nohz tick or the idle time on IRQ exit, we
> > check first if we are not in a nesting interrupt, whether the inner
> > interrupt is a hard or a soft IRQ.
> > 
> > There is a historical reason for that: the dyntick idle mode used to
> > reprogram the tick on IRQ exit, after softirq processing, and there was
> > no point in doing that job in the outer nesting interrupt because the
> > tick update will be performed through the end of the inner interrupt
> > eventually, with even potential new timer updates.
> > 
> > One corner case could show up though: if an idle tick interrupts a softirq
> > executing inline in the idle loop (through a call to local_bh_enable())
> 
> Where does this happen? Why is anything in the idle loop doing a
> local_bh_disable/enable() pair?
> 
> Or are you talking about NOHZ FULL and arbitrary task context?

It's about the idle loop. But I'm not aware of any example in practice, this is
a purely theoretical, and more importantly it doesn't concern upstream anymore since
we don't stop the tick from IRQ-tail anymore in dynticks-idle mode after Rafael's
changes.

> 
> > after we entered in dynticks mode, the IRQ won't reprogram the tick
> > because it assumes the softirq executes on an inner IRQ-tail. As a
> > result we might put the CPU in sleep mode with the tick completely
> > stopped whereas a timer can still be enqueued. Indeed there is no tick
> > reprogramming in local_bh_enable(). We probably asssumed there was no bh
> > disabled section in idle, although there didn't seem to be debug code
> > ensuring that.

In fact I should remove this whole paragraph, it's about code history that's
not relevant anymore and it confuses the whole explanation which should
concern nohz_full only.

> > 
> > Nowadays the nesting interrupt optimization still stands but only concern
> > full dynticks. The tick is stopped on IRQ exit in full dynticks mode
> > and we want to wait for the end of the inner IRQ to reprogramm the tick.
> > But in_interrupt() doesn't make a difference between softirqs executing
> > on IRQ tail and those executing inline. What was to be considered a
> > corner case in dynticks-idle mode now becomes a serious opportunity for
> > a bug in full dynticks mode: if a tick interrupts a task executing
> > softirq inline, the tick reprogramming will be ignored and we may exit
> > to userspace after local_bh_enable() with an enqueued timer that will
> > never fire.
> > 
> > To fix this, simply keep reprogramming the tick if we are in a hardirq
> > interrupting softirq. We can still figure out a way later to restore
> > this optimization while excluding inline softirq processing.
> 
> I'm not really happy with that 'fix' because what happens if:
> 
>   ....
>   local_bh_enable()
>     do_softirq()
>       --> interrupt()
> 	     tick_nohz_irq_exit();
>       arm_timer();
> 
> So if that new timer is the only one on the CPU, what is going to arm the
> timer hardware which was just switched off in tick_nohz_irq_exit()?
> 
> I haven't looked deep enough, but a simple unconditional call to
> tick_irq_exit() at the end of do_softirq() might do the trick.

Nope it should be ok, nohz_full is supposed to support timers queued on the fly
while the tick is stopped, we issue a self-IPI if necessary:

    internal_add_timer() -> trigger_dyntick_cpu() -> wake_up_nohz_cpu()

Thanks.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists