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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 20 Nov 2019 20:02:15 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Babu Moger <Babu.Moger@....com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Yuyang Du <duyuyang@...il.com>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 7/7] x86,rcu: use percpu rcu_preempt_depth

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:47:53AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2019/11/20 5:14 上午, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 09:59:03AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 2019/11/18 10:59 下午, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:02:50AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 2019/11/16 11:48 下午, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 12:45:59PM +0000, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > > > > > > Convert x86 to use a per-cpu rcu_preempt_depth. The reason for doing so
> > > > > > > is that accessing per-cpu variables is a lot cheaper than accessing
> > > > > > > task_struct or thread_info variables.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > We need to save/restore the actual rcu_preempt_depth when switch.
> > > > > > > We also place the per-cpu rcu_preempt_depth close to __preempt_count
> > > > > > > and current_task variable.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Using the idea of per-cpu __preempt_count.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > No function call when using rcu_read_[un]lock().
> > > > > > > Single instruction for rcu_read_lock().
> > > > > > > 2 instructions for fast path of rcu_read_unlock().
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Wouldn't putting RCU's nesting-depth counter in task info be just as fast,
> > > > > > just as nice for #include/inlining, and a lot less per-architecture code?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Or am I missing some issue with the task-info approach?
> > > > > 
> > > > > struct thread_info itself is per-architecture definition.
> > > > > All the arches would have to be touched if RCU's nesting-depth counter
> > > > > is put int struct thread_info. Though the inlining functions can be
> > > > > defined in include/asm-generic/ so that it serves for all arches
> > > > > and X86 can have its own implementation in arch/x86/include/asm/.
> > > > 
> > > > True enough.
> > > > 
> > > > But doesn't the per-CPU code require per-architecture changes to copy
> > > > to and from the per-CPU variable?  If that code simpler and smaller than
> > > > the thread_info access code, I will be -very- surprised.
> > > 
> > > The per-CPU code is not simpler. And my code touch X86 ONLY so that
> > > it requires an additional CONFIG and some more "#if" in rcu code
> > > which adds little more complicity.
> > > 
> > > As far as I understand, the rcu_read_lock_nesting can only be possible
> > > put in per CPU in X86, not possible in other ARCHs.
> > > 
> > > Putting the rcu_read_lock_nesting in struct thread_info and putting
> > > the inlining functions in include/asm-generic/ are OK for me. It will
> > > be a good-shaped framework and reduce function calls, and still allow
> > > x86 has its own implementation.
> > 
> > In addition, even for x86, the struct thread_info approach would avoid
> > adding more instructions to the context-switch path.
> 
> For all arches, these is no additional instructions to the
> context-switch path for the struct thread_info approach.
> 
> The X86 per-cpu approach adds only a 2loads and 2 stores in the
> context-switch path.
> 
> But there are tens of read_read_[un]lock calls between context-switchs
> if not hundreds nor thousands. The read_read_[un]lock is more frequent
> than context-switch. Every read_read_[un]lock pair needs about 20
> instructions now, reducing the pair to 3 instructions in the percpu
> approach is a win in my opinion.
> 
> > > The framework will only be more appealing when the x86 percpu
> > > rcu_read_lock_nesting is implemented. This series implements
> > > the x86 percpu rcu_read_lock_nesting first and avoid touch too much
> > > files. The framework can be implemented later
> > 
> > If I remember correctly, you mentioned earlier that the struct
> > thread_info approach was just as few instructions for rcu_read_lock()
> > and rcu_read_unlock() as is the per-CPU approach.  If that is the
> > case, and if the struct thread_info approach avoids adding code to the
> > context-switch path, why would the x86 maintainers be at all happy with
> > the per-CPU approach?  What am I missing here?
> 
> The struct thread_info approach will save only function calls compared
> with the current struct task_struct approach. The struct thread_info
> approach and the current struct task_struct approach are the same
> excepct that the later one has to do function calls to avoid c-header
> files including hell.
> 
> These is no additional instructions to the context-switch path for the
> struct thread_info approach. But I'm not sure whether each Arch
> maintainers be at all happy with the struct thread_info approach
> since the benefit is not so large as x86.
> 
> And maybe gcc LTO can reduce the function calls too, so that the
> struct thread_info approach and the current struct task_struct
> approach will be really exactly the same. But I know nothing about
> LTO.
> 
> The struct thread_info approach will still need 12(=5+7) instructions
> for read_read_[un]lock pair whereas the per-CPU approach needs only 3
> instructions for every pair (fast path).

OK, that does sound like a potential benefit.  Let's get the preparatory
work (needed in either case) done.  At the end of the day, the final
decision will be with the x86 maintainers and the scheduler maintainer.

But I have to ask...  Is this difference in number of instructions
visible at the system level in any way?

> In x86, on one hand, this patchset reduces the number of instructions
> needed for the read_read_[un]lock pair markedly (12 basic instructions
> + 2 functions calls => 3 instructions).
> 
> On the other hand, it can be compared with preempt_disable/enable()
> pair, which had also been changed from the struct thread_info approach
> by Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> at c2daa3bed53a in 2013.
> The importance of reducing the overhead of the preempt_disable/enable()
> pair and the read_read_[un]lock pair is the same to me. Especially,
> preempt_disable/enable() is discouraged except really needed, while
> the usage of read_read_[un]lock is increasing.

Then perhaps when the time comes we will get an ack from Peter.

But again, I need to get expedited grace periods fixed up for nohz_full
CPUs in either case, and again this will have priority next week..

							Thanx, Paul

> Thanks
> Lai
> 
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> > 
> > > Thanks
> > > Lai
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > > 
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >     arch/x86/Kconfig                         |  2 +
> > > > > > >     arch/x86/include/asm/rcu_preempt_depth.h | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > >     arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c             |  7 ++
> > > > > > >     arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c             |  2 +
> > > > > > >     arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c             |  2 +
> > > > > > >     include/linux/rcupdate.h                 | 24 +++++++
> > > > > > >     init/init_task.c                         |  2 +-
> > > > > > >     kernel/fork.c                            |  2 +-
> > > > > > >     kernel/rcu/Kconfig                       |  3 +
> > > > > > >     kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h                    |  2 +
> > > > > > >     kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h                 | 37 +++++++---
> > > > > > >     11 files changed, 158 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >     create mode 100644 arch/x86/include/asm/rcu_preempt_depth.h
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > > > > > > index d6e1faa28c58..af9fedc0fdc4 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > > > > > > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ config X86_32
> > > > > > >     	select MODULES_USE_ELF_REL
> > > > > > >     	select OLD_SIGACTION
> > > > > > >     	select GENERIC_VDSO_32
> > > > > > > +	select ARCH_HAVE_RCU_PREEMPT_DEEPTH
> > > > > > >     config X86_64
> > > > > > >     	def_bool y
> > > > > > > @@ -31,6 +32,7 @@ config X86_64
> > > > > > >     	select NEED_DMA_MAP_STATE
> > > > > > >     	select SWIOTLB
> > > > > > >     	select ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER
> > > > > > > +	select ARCH_HAVE_RCU_PREEMPT_DEEPTH
> > > > > > >     config FORCE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE
> > > > > > >     	def_bool y
> > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/rcu_preempt_depth.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/rcu_preempt_depth.h
> > > > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > > > index 000000000000..88010ad59c20
> > > > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/rcu_preempt_depth.h
> > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
> > > > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > > > > > > +#ifndef __ASM_RCU_PREEMPT_DEPTH_H
> > > > > > > +#define __ASM_RCU_PREEMPT_DEPTH_H
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +#include <asm/rmwcc.h>
> > > > > > > +#include <asm/percpu.h>
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> > > > > > > +DECLARE_PER_CPU(int, __rcu_preempt_depth);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +/*
> > > > > > > + * We use the RCU_NEED_SPECIAL bit as an inverted need_special
> > > > > > > + * such that a decrement hitting 0 means we can and should do
> > > > > > > + * rcu_read_unlock_special().
> > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > +#define RCU_NEED_SPECIAL	0x80000000
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +#define INIT_RCU_PREEMPT_DEPTH	(RCU_NEED_SPECIAL)
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +/* We mask the RCU_NEED_SPECIAL bit so that it return real depth */
> > > > > > > +static __always_inline int rcu_preempt_depth(void)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +	return raw_cpu_read_4(__rcu_preempt_depth) & ~RCU_NEED_SPECIAL;
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +static __always_inline void rcu_preempt_depth_set(int pc)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +	int old, new;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +	do {
> > > > > > > +		old = raw_cpu_read_4(__rcu_preempt_depth);
> > > > > > > +		new = (old & RCU_NEED_SPECIAL) |
> > > > > > > +			(pc & ~RCU_NEED_SPECIAL);
> > > > > > > +	} while (raw_cpu_cmpxchg_4(__rcu_preempt_depth, old, new) != old);
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +/*
> > > > > > > + * We fold the RCU_NEED_SPECIAL bit into the rcu_preempt_depth such that
> > > > > > > + * rcu_read_unlock() can decrement and test for needing to do special
> > > > > > > + * with a single instruction.
> > > > > > > + *
> > > > > > > + * We invert the actual bit, so that when the decrement hits 0 we know
> > > > > > > + * both it just exited the outmost rcu_read_lock() critical section and
> > > > > > > + * we need to do specail (the bit is cleared) if it doesn't need to be
> > > > > > > + * deferred.
> > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +static inline void set_rcu_preempt_need_special(void)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +	raw_cpu_and_4(__rcu_preempt_depth, ~RCU_NEED_SPECIAL);
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +/*
> > > > > > > + * irq needs to be disabled for clearing any bits of ->rcu_read_unlock_special
> > > > > > > + * and calling this function. Otherwise it may clear the work done
> > > > > > > + * by set_rcu_preempt_need_special() in interrupt.
> > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > +static inline void clear_rcu_preempt_need_special(void)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +	raw_cpu_or_4(__rcu_preempt_depth, RCU_NEED_SPECIAL);
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +static __always_inline void rcu_preempt_depth_inc(void)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +	raw_cpu_add_4(__rcu_preempt_depth, 1);
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +static __always_inline bool rcu_preempt_depth_dec_and_test(void)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +	return GEN_UNARY_RMWcc("decl", __rcu_preempt_depth, e, __percpu_arg([var]));
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +/* must be macros to avoid header recursion hell */
> > > > > > > +#define save_restore_rcu_preempt_depth(prev_p, next_p) do {				\
> > > > > > > +		prev_p->rcu_read_lock_nesting = this_cpu_read(__rcu_preempt_depth);	\
> > > > > > > +		this_cpu_write(__rcu_preempt_depth, next_p->rcu_read_lock_nesting);	\
> > > > > > > +	} while (0)
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +#define DEFINE_PERCPU_RCU_PREEMP_DEPTH						\
> > > > > > > +	DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, __rcu_preempt_depth) = INIT_RCU_PREEMPT_DEPTH;	\
> > > > > > > +	EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL(__rcu_preempt_depth)
> > > > > > > +#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU */
> > > > > > > +#define save_restore_rcu_preempt_depth(prev_p, next_p) do {} while (0)
> > > > > > > +#define DEFINE_PERCPU_RCU_PREEMP_DEPTH	/* empty */
> > > > > > > +#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU */
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +#endif /* __ASM_RCU_PREEMPT_DEPTH_H */
> > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> > > > > > > index 9ae7d1bcd4f4..0151737e196c 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> > > > > > > @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@
> > > > > > >     #include <asm/asm.h>
> > > > > > >     #include <asm/bugs.h>
> > > > > > >     #include <asm/cpu.h>
> > > > > > > +#include <asm/rcu_preempt_depth.h>
> > > > > > >     #include <asm/mce.h>
> > > > > > >     #include <asm/msr.h>
> > > > > > >     #include <asm/pat.h>
> > > > > > > @@ -1633,6 +1634,9 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, irq_count) __visible = -1;
> > > > > > >     DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, __preempt_count) = INIT_PREEMPT_COUNT;
> > > > > > >     EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL(__preempt_count);
> > > > > > > +/* close to __preempt_count */
> > > > > > > +DEFINE_PERCPU_RCU_PREEMP_DEPTH;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > >     /* May not be marked __init: used by software suspend */
> > > > > > >     void syscall_init(void)
> > > > > > >     {
> > > > > > > @@ -1690,6 +1694,9 @@ EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL(current_task);
> > > > > > >     DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, __preempt_count) = INIT_PREEMPT_COUNT;
> > > > > > >     EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL(__preempt_count);
> > > > > > > +/* close to __preempt_count */
> > > > > > > +DEFINE_PERCPU_RCU_PREEMP_DEPTH;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > >     /*
> > > > > > >      * On x86_32, vm86 modifies tss.sp0, so sp0 isn't a reliable way to find
> > > > > > >      * the top of the kernel stack.  Use an extra percpu variable to track the
> > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c
> > > > > > > index b8ceec4974fe..ab1f20353663 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c
> > > > > > > @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@
> > > > > > >     #include <asm/cpu.h>
> > > > > > >     #include <asm/syscalls.h>
> > > > > > >     #include <asm/debugreg.h>
> > > > > > > +#include <asm/rcu_preempt_depth.h>
> > > > > > >     #include <asm/switch_to.h>
> > > > > > >     #include <asm/vm86.h>
> > > > > > >     #include <asm/resctrl_sched.h>
> > > > > > > @@ -290,6 +291,7 @@ __switch_to(struct task_struct *prev_p, struct task_struct *next_p)
> > > > > > >     	if (prev->gs | next->gs)
> > > > > > >     		lazy_load_gs(next->gs);
> > > > > > > +	save_restore_rcu_preempt_depth(prev_p, next_p);
> > > > > > >     	this_cpu_write(current_task, next_p);
> > > > > > >     	switch_fpu_finish(next_fpu);
> > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> > > > > > > index af64519b2695..2e1c6e829d30 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> > > > > > > @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@
> > > > > > >     #include <asm/ia32.h>
> > > > > > >     #include <asm/syscalls.h>
> > > > > > >     #include <asm/debugreg.h>
> > > > > > > +#include <asm/rcu_preempt_depth.h>
> > > > > > >     #include <asm/switch_to.h>
> > > > > > >     #include <asm/xen/hypervisor.h>
> > > > > > >     #include <asm/vdso.h>
> > > > > > > @@ -559,6 +560,7 @@ __switch_to(struct task_struct *prev_p, struct task_struct *next_p)
> > > > > > >     	x86_fsgsbase_load(prev, next);
> > > > > > > +	save_restore_rcu_preempt_depth(prev_p, next_p);
> > > > > > >     	/*
> > > > > > >     	 * Switch the PDA and FPU contexts.
> > > > > > >     	 */
> > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > > > > > > index a35daab95d14..0d2abf08b694 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > > > > > > @@ -41,6 +41,29 @@ void synchronize_rcu(void);
> > > > > > >     #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAVE_RCU_PREEMPT_DEEPTH
> > > > > > > +#include <asm/rcu_preempt_depth.h>
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +#ifndef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> > > > > > > +extern void rcu_read_unlock_special(void);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +static inline void __rcu_read_lock(void)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +	rcu_preempt_depth_inc();
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +static inline void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +	if (unlikely(rcu_preempt_depth_dec_and_test()))
> > > > > > > +		rcu_read_unlock_special();
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > +#else
> > > > > > > +void __rcu_read_lock(void);
> > > > > > > +void __rcu_read_unlock(void);
> > > > > > > +#endif
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAVE_RCU_PREEMPT_DEEPTH */
> > > > > > > +#define INIT_RCU_PREEMPT_DEPTH (0)
> > > > > > >     void __rcu_read_lock(void);
> > > > > > >     void __rcu_read_unlock(void);
> > > > > > > @@ -51,6 +74,7 @@ void __rcu_read_unlock(void);
> > > > > > >      * types of kernel builds, the rcu_read_lock() nesting depth is unknowable.
> > > > > > >      */
> > > > > > >     #define rcu_preempt_depth() (current->rcu_read_lock_nesting)
> > > > > > > +#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAVE_RCU_PREEMPT_DEEPTH */
> > > > > > >     #else /* #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU */
> > > > > > > diff --git a/init/init_task.c b/init/init_task.c
> > > > > > > index 9e5cbe5eab7b..0a91e38fba37 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/init/init_task.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/init/init_task.c
> > > > > > > @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ struct task_struct init_task
> > > > > > >     	.perf_event_list = LIST_HEAD_INIT(init_task.perf_event_list),
> > > > > > >     #endif
> > > > > > >     #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> > > > > > > -	.rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0,
> > > > > > > +	.rcu_read_lock_nesting = INIT_RCU_PREEMPT_DEPTH,
> > > > > > >     	.rcu_read_unlock_special.s = 0,
> > > > > > >     	.rcu_node_entry = LIST_HEAD_INIT(init_task.rcu_node_entry),
> > > > > > >     	.rcu_blocked_node = NULL,
> > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> > > > > > > index f9572f416126..7368d4ccb857 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/kernel/fork.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> > > > > > > @@ -1665,7 +1665,7 @@ init_task_pid(struct task_struct *task, enum pid_type type, struct pid *pid)
> > > > > > >     static inline void rcu_copy_process(struct task_struct *p)
> > > > > > >     {
> > > > > > >     #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> > > > > > > -	p->rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0;
> > > > > > > +	p->rcu_read_lock_nesting = INIT_RCU_PREEMPT_DEPTH;
> > > > > > >     	p->rcu_read_unlock_special.s = 0;
> > > > > > >     	p->rcu_blocked_node = NULL;
> > > > > > >     	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->rcu_node_entry);
> > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/Kconfig b/kernel/rcu/Kconfig
> > > > > > > index 1cc940fef17c..d2ecca49a1a4 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/Kconfig
> > > > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/Kconfig
> > > > > > > @@ -14,6 +14,9 @@ config TREE_RCU
> > > > > > >     	  thousands of CPUs.  It also scales down nicely to
> > > > > > >     	  smaller systems.
> > > > > > > +config ARCH_HAVE_RCU_PREEMPT_DEEPTH
> > > > > > > +	def_bool n
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > >     config PREEMPT_RCU
> > > > > > >     	bool
> > > > > > >     	default y if PREEMPTION
> > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > > > > > > index dcb2124203cf..f919881832d4 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > > > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > > > > > > @@ -588,6 +588,7 @@ static void wait_rcu_exp_gp(struct work_struct *wp)
> > > > > > >     }
> > > > > > >     #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> > > > > > > +static inline void set_rcu_preempt_need_special(void);
> > > > > > >     /*
> > > > > > >      * Remote handler for smp_call_function_single().  If there is an
> > > > > > > @@ -637,6 +638,7 @@ static void rcu_exp_handler(void *unused)
> > > > > > >     		if (rnp->expmask & rdp->grpmask) {
> > > > > > >     			rdp->exp_deferred_qs = true;
> > > > > > >     			t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint = true;
> > > > > > > +			set_rcu_preempt_need_special();
> > > > > > >     		}
> > > > > > >     		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > > > > > >     		return;
> > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > > > > > index e16c3867d2ff..e6774a7ab16b 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > > > > > @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ static void __init rcu_bootup_announce_oddness(void)
> > > > > > >     #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> > > > > > >     static void rcu_report_exp_rnp(struct rcu_node *rnp, bool wake);
> > > > > > > -static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t);
> > > > > > > +void rcu_read_unlock_special(void);
> > > > > > >     /*
> > > > > > >      * Tell them what RCU they are running.
> > > > > > > @@ -298,6 +298,7 @@ void rcu_note_context_switch(bool preempt)
> > > > > > >     		t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.need_qs = false;
> > > > > > >     		t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.blocked = true;
> > > > > > >     		t->rcu_blocked_node = rnp;
> > > > > > > +		set_rcu_preempt_need_special();
> > > > > > >     		/*
> > > > > > >     		 * Verify the CPU's sanity, trace the preemption, and
> > > > > > > @@ -345,6 +346,7 @@ static int rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> > > > > > >     /* Bias and limit values for ->rcu_read_lock_nesting. */
> > > > > > >     #define RCU_NEST_PMAX (INT_MAX / 2)
> > > > > > > +#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_HAVE_RCU_PREEMPT_DEEPTH
> > > > > > >     static inline void rcu_preempt_depth_inc(void)
> > > > > > >     {
> > > > > > >     	current->rcu_read_lock_nesting++;
> > > > > > > @@ -352,7 +354,12 @@ static inline void rcu_preempt_depth_inc(void)
> > > > > > >     static inline bool rcu_preempt_depth_dec_and_test(void)
> > > > > > >     {
> > > > > > > -	return --current->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0;
> > > > > > > +	if (--current->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0) {
> > > > > > > +		/* check speical after dec ->rcu_read_lock_nesting */
> > > > > > > +		barrier();
> > > > > > > +		return READ_ONCE(current->rcu_read_unlock_special.s);
> > > > > > > +	}
> > > > > > > +	return 0;
> > > > > > >     }
> > > > > > >     static inline void rcu_preempt_depth_set(int val)
> > > > > > > @@ -360,6 +367,12 @@ static inline void rcu_preempt_depth_set(int val)
> > > > > > >     	current->rcu_read_lock_nesting = val;
> > > > > > >     }
> > > > > > > +static inline void clear_rcu_preempt_need_special(void) {}
> > > > > > > +static inline void set_rcu_preempt_need_special(void) {}
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +#endif /* #ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_HAVE_RCU_PREEMPT_DEEPTH */
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +#if !defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAVE_RCU_PREEMPT_DEEPTH) || defined (CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING)
> > > > > > >     /*
> > > > > > >      * Preemptible RCU implementation for rcu_read_lock().
> > > > > > >      * Just increment ->rcu_read_lock_nesting, shared state will be updated
> > > > > > > @@ -383,18 +396,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__rcu_read_lock);
> > > > > > >      */
> > > > > > >     void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
> > > > > > >     {
> > > > > > > -	struct task_struct *t = current;
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > >     	if (rcu_preempt_depth_dec_and_test()) {
> > > > > > > -		barrier();  /* critical section before exit code. */
> > > > > > > -		if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s)))
> > > > > > > -			rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> > > > > > > +		rcu_read_unlock_special();
> > > > > > >     	}
> > > > > > >     	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING)) {
> > > > > > > -		WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_preempt_depth() < 0);
> > > > > > > +		WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_preempt_depth() < 0 ||
> > > > > > > +			     rcu_preempt_depth() > RCU_NEST_PMAX);
> > > > > > >     	}
> > > > > > >     }
> > > > > > >     EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__rcu_read_unlock);
> > > > > > > +#endif /* #if !defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAVE_RCU_PREEMPT_DEEPTH) || defined (CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING) */
> > > > > > >     /*
> > > > > > >      * Advance a ->blkd_tasks-list pointer to the next entry, instead
> > > > > > > @@ -449,6 +460,7 @@ rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(struct task_struct *t, unsigned long flags)
> > > > > > >     		return;
> > > > > > >     	}
> > > > > > >     	t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s = 0;
> > > > > > > +	clear_rcu_preempt_need_special();
> > > > > > >     	if (special.b.need_qs)
> > > > > > >     		rcu_qs();
> > > > > > > @@ -579,8 +591,9 @@ static void rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_handler(struct irq_work *iwp)
> > > > > > >      * notify RCU core processing or task having blocked during the RCU
> > > > > > >      * read-side critical section.
> > > > > > >      */
> > > > > > > -static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
> > > > > > > +void rcu_read_unlock_special(void)
> > > > > > >     {
> > > > > > > +	struct task_struct *t = current;
> > > > > > >     	unsigned long flags;
> > > > > > >     	bool preempt_bh_were_disabled =
> > > > > > >     			!!(preempt_count() & (PREEMPT_MASK | SOFTIRQ_MASK));
> > > > > > > @@ -631,6 +644,7 @@ static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
> > > > > > >     	}
> > > > > > >     	rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(t, flags);
> > > > > > >     }
> > > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_unlock_special);
> > > > > > >     /*
> > > > > > >      * Check that the list of blocked tasks for the newly completed grace
> > > > > > > @@ -694,8 +708,10 @@ static void rcu_flavor_sched_clock_irq(int user)
> > > > > > >     	    __this_cpu_read(rcu_data.core_needs_qs) &&
> > > > > > >     	    __this_cpu_read(rcu_data.cpu_no_qs.b.norm) &&
> > > > > > >     	    !t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.need_qs &&
> > > > > > > -	    time_after(jiffies, rcu_state.gp_start + HZ))
> > > > > > > +	    time_after(jiffies, rcu_state.gp_start + HZ)) {
> > > > > > >     		t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.need_qs = true;
> > > > > > > +		set_rcu_preempt_need_special();
> > > > > > > +	}
> > > > > > >     }
> > > > > > >     /*
> > > > > > > @@ -714,6 +730,7 @@ void exit_rcu(void)
> > > > > > >     		rcu_preempt_depth_set(1);
> > > > > > >     		barrier();
> > > > > > >     		WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.blocked, true);
> > > > > > > +		set_rcu_preempt_need_special();
> > > > > > >     	} else if (unlikely(rcu_preempt_depth())) {
> > > > > > >     		rcu_preempt_depth_set(1);
> > > > > > >     	} else {
> > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > 2.20.1
> > > > > > > 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists