| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20190625025015.GB10912@X58A-UD3R>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:50:15 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.ibm.com, josh@...htriplett.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC] rcu: Warn that rcu ktheads cannot be spawned
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:46:24PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 05:27:32PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > Hello rcu folks,
> >
> > I thought it'd better to announce it if those spawnings fail because of
> > !rcu_scheduler_fully_active.
> >
> > Of course, with the current code, it never happens though.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> It seems in the right spirit, but with your patch a warning always fires.
> rcu_prepare_cpu() is called multiple times, once from rcu_init() and then
> from hotplug paths.
I'm sorry bothering you.
I sent the patch to ask how you guys think about the direction coz I'm
not sure if the current code w/o warning on it is intended or not.
However from now on, I think I need to test it first even if it's RFC :)
Thank you very much for the information.
Thanks,
Byungchul
> Warning splat stack looks like:
>
> [ 0.398767] Call Trace:
> [ 0.398775] rcu_init+0x6aa/0x724
> [ 0.398779] start_kernel+0x220/0x4a2
> [ 0.398780] ? copy_bootdata+0x12/0xac
> [ 0.398782] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Byungchul
> >
> > ---8<---
> > From 58a33a85c70f82c406319b4752af95cf6ceb73a3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
> > Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 17:08:26 +0900
> > Subject: [RFC] rcu: Warn that rcu ktheads cannot be spawned
> >
> > In case that rcu ktheads cannot be spawned due to
> > !rcu_scheduler_fully_active, it'd be better to anounce it.
> >
> > While at it, because the return value of rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread()
> > is not used any longer, changed the return type from int to void.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
> > ---
> > kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 31 +++++++++++++++++++------------
> > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > index 1102765..7d74193 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > @@ -1131,7 +1131,7 @@ static void rcu_preempt_boost_start_gp(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> > * already exist. We only create this kthread for preemptible RCU.
> > * Returns zero if all is well, a negated errno otherwise.
> > */
> > -static int rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> > +static void rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> > {
> > int rnp_index = rnp - rcu_get_root();
> > unsigned long flags;
> > @@ -1139,25 +1139,24 @@ static int rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> > struct task_struct *t;
> >
> > if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU))
> > - return 0;
> > + return;
> >
> > - if (!rcu_scheduler_fully_active || rcu_rnp_online_cpus(rnp) == 0)
> > - return 0;
> > + if (rcu_rnp_online_cpus(rnp) == 0)
> > + return;
> >
> > rcu_state.boost = 1;
> > if (rnp->boost_kthread_task != NULL)
> > - return 0;
> > + return;
> > t = kthread_create(rcu_boost_kthread, (void *)rnp,
> > "rcub/%d", rnp_index);
> > if (IS_ERR(t))
> > - return PTR_ERR(t);
> > + return;
> > raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > rnp->boost_kthread_task = t;
> > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > sp.sched_priority = kthread_prio;
> > sched_setscheduler_nocheck(t, SCHED_FIFO, &sp);
> > wake_up_process(t); /* get to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE quickly. */
> > - return 0;
> > }
> >
> > static void rcu_cpu_kthread_setup(unsigned int cpu)
> > @@ -1264,8 +1263,12 @@ static void __init rcu_spawn_boost_kthreads(void)
> > per_cpu(rcu_data.rcu_cpu_has_work, cpu) = 0;
> > if (WARN_ONCE(smpboot_register_percpu_thread(&rcu_cpu_thread_spec), "%s: Could not start rcub kthread, OOM is now expected behavior\n", __func__))
> > return;
> > +
> > + if (WARN_ON(!rcu_scheduler_fully_active))
> > + return;
> > +
> > rcu_for_each_leaf_node(rnp)
> > - (void)rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread(rnp);
> > + rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread(rnp);
> > }
> >
> > static void rcu_prepare_kthreads(int cpu)
> > @@ -1273,9 +1276,11 @@ static void rcu_prepare_kthreads(int cpu)
> > struct rcu_data *rdp = per_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data, cpu);
> > struct rcu_node *rnp = rdp->mynode;
> >
> > + if (WARN_ON(!rcu_scheduler_fully_active))
> > + return;
> > +
> > /* Fire up the incoming CPU's kthread and leaf rcu_node kthread. */
> > - if (rcu_scheduler_fully_active)
> > - (void)rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread(rnp);
> > + rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread(rnp);
> > }
> >
> > #else /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
> > @@ -2198,8 +2203,10 @@ static void rcu_spawn_one_nocb_kthread(int cpu)
> > */
> > static void rcu_spawn_cpu_nocb_kthread(int cpu)
> > {
> > - if (rcu_scheduler_fully_active)
> > - rcu_spawn_one_nocb_kthread(cpu);
> > + if (WARN_ON(!rcu_scheduler_fully_active))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + rcu_spawn_one_nocb_kthread(cpu);
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > --
> > 1.9.1
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists