| 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: <20190905153620.GG26466@google.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 11:36:20 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
rcu@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -rcu dev 1/2] Revert b8c17e6664c4 ("rcu: Maintain special
bits at bottom of ->dynticks counter")
On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 04:13:08PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 09:54:20AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 03:12:10AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 12:59:10AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 01:02:49PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> > > If this task gets delayed betweentimes, rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs() would
> > > fail to set .rcu_need_heavy_qs because it saw it already being set,
> > > even though the corresponding ->dynticks update had already happened.
> > > (It might be a new grace period, given that the old grace period might
> > > have ended courtesy of the atomic_add_return().)
> >
> > Makes sense and I agree.
> >
> > Also, I would really appreciate if you can correct the nits in the above
> > patch we're reviewing, and apply them (if you can).
> > I think, there are only 2 changes left:
> > - rename special to seq.
> > - reorder the rcu_need_heavy_qs write.
> >
> > On a related point, when I was working on the NOHZ_FULL testing I noticed a
> > weird issue where rcu_urgent_qs was reset but rcu_need_heavy_qs was still
> > set indefinitely. I am a bit afraid our hints are not being cleared
> > appropriately and I believe I fixed a similar issue a few months ago. I
> > would rather have them cleared once they are no longer needed. What do you
> > think about the below patch? I did not submit it yet because I was working
> > on other patches.
> >
> > ---8<-----------------------
> >
> > From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> > Subject: [RFC] rcu/tree: Reset CPU hints when reporting a quiescent state
> >
> > While tracing, I am seeing cases where need_heavy_qs is still set even
> > though urgent_qs was cleared, after a quiescent state is reported. One
> > such case is when the softirq reports that a CPU has passed quiescent
> > state.
> >
> > Previously in 671a63517cf9 ("rcu: Avoid unnecessary softirq when system
> > is idle"), I had fixed a bug where core_needs_qs was not being cleared.
> > I worry we keep running into similar situations. Let us just add a
> > function to clear hints and call it from all relevant places to make the
> > code more robust and avoid such stale hints which could in theory at
> > least, cause false hints after the quiescent state was already reported.
> >
> > Tested overnight with rcutorture running for 60 minutes on all
> > configurations of RCU.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> > ---
> > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Excellent point! But how about if we combine it with the existing
> disabling of the scheduler tick, perhaps something like the following?
>
> Note that the FQS clearing can come from some other CPU, hence the added
> {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() calls. The call is moved down in rcu_report_qs_rdp()
> because something would have had to clear the bit to prevent execution
> from getting there, and I believe that the other bit-clearing events
> have calls to rcu_disable_urgency_upon_qs(). (But I easily could have
> missed something!)
Is there any harm just clearing it earlier in rcu_report_qs_rdp()? If no,
then let us just play it safe and do it that way (clear earlier in
rcu_report_qs_rdp())?
> I am OK leaving RCU urgency set on offline CPUs, hence clearing things
> at online time.
Got it, probably this point can be added to the commit message.
Added more comments below but otherwise it looks good to me:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 68ebf0eb64c8..2b74b6c94086 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -827,7 +827,7 @@ static __always_inline void rcu_nmi_enter_common(bool irq)
> incby = 1;
> } else if (tick_nohz_full_cpu(rdp->cpu) &&
> rdp->dynticks_nmi_nesting == DYNTICK_IRQ_NONIDLE &&
> - rdp->rcu_urgent_qs && !rdp->rcu_forced_tick) {
> + READ_ONCE(rdp->rcu_urgent_qs) && !rdp->rcu_forced_tick) {
> rdp->rcu_forced_tick = true;
> tick_dep_set_cpu(rdp->cpu, TICK_DEP_BIT_RCU);
> }
> @@ -892,11 +892,15 @@ void rcu_irq_enter_irqson(void)
> }
>
> /*
> - * If the scheduler-clock interrupt was enabled on a nohz_full CPU
> - * in order to get to a quiescent state, disable it.
> + * If any sort of urgency was applied to the current CPU (for example,
> + * the scheduler-clock interrupt was enabled on a nohz_full CPU) in order
> + * to get to a quiescent state, disable it.
> */
> -void rcu_disable_tick_upon_qs(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> +void rcu_disable_urgency_upon_qs(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> {
> + WRITE_ONCE(rdp->core_needs_qs, false);
> + WRITE_ONCE(rdp->rcu_urgent_qs, false);
> + WRITE_ONCE(rdp->rcu_need_heavy_qs, false);
Better to put a comment here saying _ONCE is needed to avoid data-races with
the FQS loop? Just so if anyone thinks why we are using _ONCE().
And I am guessing the __this_cpu_read(rcu_data.core_needs_qs) in
rcu_flavor_sched_clock_irq() implies READ_ONCE() so no need READ_ONCE()
there right?
> if (tick_nohz_full_cpu(rdp->cpu) && rdp->rcu_forced_tick) {
> tick_dep_clear_cpu(rdp->cpu, TICK_DEP_BIT_RCU);
> rdp->rcu_forced_tick = false;
> @@ -1417,7 +1421,7 @@ static bool __note_gp_changes(struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp)
> trace_rcu_grace_period(rcu_state.name, rnp->gp_seq, TPS("cpustart"));
> need_gp = !!(rnp->qsmask & rdp->grpmask);
> rdp->cpu_no_qs.b.norm = need_gp;
> - rdp->core_needs_qs = need_gp;
> + WRITE_ONCE(rdp->core_needs_qs, need_gp);
> zero_cpu_stall_ticks(rdp);
> }
> rdp->gp_seq = rnp->gp_seq; /* Remember new grace-period state. */
> @@ -1987,7 +1991,6 @@ rcu_report_qs_rdp(int cpu, struct rcu_data *rdp)
> return;
> }
> mask = rdp->grpmask;
> - rdp->core_needs_qs = false;
> if ((rnp->qsmask & mask) == 0) {
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> } else {
> @@ -1998,7 +2001,7 @@ rcu_report_qs_rdp(int cpu, struct rcu_data *rdp)
> if (!offloaded)
> needwake = rcu_accelerate_cbs(rnp, rdp);
>
> - rcu_disable_tick_upon_qs(rdp);
> + rcu_disable_urgency_upon_qs(rdp);
> rcu_report_qs_rnp(mask, rnp, rnp->gp_seq, flags);
> /* ^^^ Released rnp->lock */
> if (needwake)
> @@ -2022,7 +2025,7 @@ rcu_check_quiescent_state(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> * Does this CPU still need to do its part for current grace period?
> * If no, return and let the other CPUs do their part as well.
> */
> - if (!rdp->core_needs_qs)
> + if (!READ_ONCE(rdp->core_needs_qs))
> return;
>
> /*
> @@ -2316,7 +2319,7 @@ static void force_qs_rnp(int (*f)(struct rcu_data *rdp))
> rdp = per_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data, cpu);
> if (f(rdp)) {
> mask |= bit;
> - rcu_disable_tick_upon_qs(rdp);
> + rcu_disable_urgency_upon_qs(rdp);
> }
> }
> }
> @@ -3004,7 +3007,7 @@ static int rcu_pending(void)
> return 0;
>
> /* Is the RCU core waiting for a quiescent state from this CPU? */
> - if (rdp->core_needs_qs && !rdp->cpu_no_qs.b.norm)
> + if (READ_ONCE(rdp->core_needs_qs) && !rdp->cpu_no_qs.b.norm)
> return 1;
>
> /* Does this CPU have callbacks ready to invoke? */
> @@ -3244,7 +3247,6 @@ int rcutree_prepare_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> rdp->gp_seq = rnp->gp_seq;
> rdp->gp_seq_needed = rnp->gp_seq;
> rdp->cpu_no_qs.b.norm = true;
> - rdp->core_needs_qs = false;
How about calling the new hint-clearing function here as well? Just for
robustness and consistency purposes?
thanks,
- Joel
> rdp->rcu_iw_pending = false;
> rdp->rcu_iw_gp_seq = rnp->gp_seq - 1;
> trace_rcu_grace_period(rcu_state.name, rdp->gp_seq, TPS("cpuonl"));
> @@ -3359,7 +3361,7 @@ void rcu_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu)
> rdp->rcu_onl_gp_seq = READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_seq);
> rdp->rcu_onl_gp_flags = READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags);
> if (rnp->qsmask & mask) { /* RCU waiting on incoming CPU? */
> - rcu_disable_tick_upon_qs(rdp);
> + rcu_disable_urgency_upon_qs(rdp);
> /* Report QS -after- changing ->qsmaskinitnext! */
> rcu_report_qs_rnp(mask, rnp, rnp->gp_seq, flags);
> } else {
Powered by blists - more mailing lists