linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -rcu dev 1/2] Revert b8c17e6664c4 ("rcu: Maintain special bits at bottom of ->dynticks counter")

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 7 Sep 2019 13:28:26 -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 Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 10:16:47AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 12:57:51PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 08:27:53AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 08:21:44AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 11:08:06AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 08:01:37PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > > [snip] 
> > > > > > > > > @@ -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?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This and the next function are both called during a CPU-hotplug online
> > > > > > > operation, so there is little robustness or consistency to be had by
> > > > > > > doing it twice.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Ok, sorry I missed you are clearing it below in the next function. That's
> > > > > > fine with me.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This patch looks good to me and I am Ok with merging of these changes into
> > > > > > the original patch with my authorship as you mentioned. Or if you wanted to
> > > > > > be author, that's fine too :)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Paul, does it make sense to clear these urgency hints in rcu_qs() as well?
> > > > > After all, we are clearing atleast one urgency hint there: the
> > > > > rcu_read_unlock_special::need_qs bit.
> > 
> > Makes sense.
> > 
> > > > We certainly don't want to turn off the scheduling-clock interrupt until
> > > > after the quiescent state has been reported to the RCU core.  And it might
> > > > still be useful to have a heavy quiescent state because the grace-period
> > > > kthread can detect that.  Just in case the CPU that just called rcu_qs()
> > > > is slow about actually reporting that quiescent state to the RCU core.
> > > 
> > > Hmmm...  Should ->need_qs ever be cleared from FQS to begin with?
> > 
> > I did not see the FQS loop clearing ->need_qs in the rcu_read_unlock_special
> > union after looking for a few minutes. Could you clarify which path this?
> > 
> > Or do you mean ->core_needs_qs? If so, I feel the FQS loop should clear it as
> > I think your patch does, since the FQS loop is essentially doing heavy-weight
> > RCU core processing right?

Took another look, rcu_read_unlock_special::need_qs is not cleared from FQS
loop. It is only set. So I did not follow what you meant. You probably were
concerned with some other hint being cleared in the FQS loop. No urgency on
this but do let me know what you meant (whenever after LPC etc).

> > Also, where does FQS loop clear rdp.cpu_no_qs? Shouldn't it clear that as
> > well for the dyntick-idle CPUs?
> 
> Synchronization?

I think you here you meant that we don't want to acquire rdp's locks so we
can't easily clear cpu_no_qs. But why not use WRITE_ONCE() to clear it, like
we are doing for the other hints?  I just felt idle CPU can't do this
clearing so the FQS loop (GP thread) should do it on its behalf.

Anyway, since you were going to squash the hint clearing with the other patch
as you mentioned in this thread, let me know once you have the squashed patch
for futher review/tracing/testing (after LPC, conferences, whenever. No rush!).

Thanks, Paul!!

 - Joel