[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <157994897779.396.13792639185111367021.tip-bot2@tip-bot2>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 10:42:57 -0000
From: "tip-bot2 for Neeraj Upadhyay" <tip-bot2@...utronix.de>
To: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [tip: core/rcu] rcu: Allow only one expedited GP to run concurrently
with wakeups
The following commit has been merged into the core/rcu branch of tip:
Commit-ID: 4bc6b745e5cbefed92c48071e28a5f41246d0470
Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/4bc6b745e5cbefed92c48071e28a5f41246d0470
Author: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>
AuthorDate: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 11:50:52 -08:00
Committer: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
CommitterDate: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 12:24:57 -08:00
rcu: Allow only one expedited GP to run concurrently with wakeups
The current expedited RCU grace-period code expects that a task
requesting an expedited grace period cannot awaken until that grace
period has reached the wakeup phase. However, it is possible for a long
preemption to result in the waiting task never sleeping. For example,
consider the following sequence of events:
1. Task A starts an expedited grace period by invoking
synchronize_rcu_expedited(). It proceeds normally up to the
wait_event() near the end of that function, and is then preempted
(or interrupted or whatever).
2. The expedited grace period completes, and a kworker task starts
the awaken phase, having incremented the counter and acquired
the rcu_state structure's .exp_wake_mutex. This kworker task
is then preempted or interrupted or whatever.
3. Task A resumes and enters wait_event(), which notes that the
expedited grace period has completed, and thus doesn't sleep.
4. Task B starts an expedited grace period exactly as did Task A,
complete with the preemption (or whatever delay) just before
the call to wait_event().
5. The expedited grace period completes, and another kworker
task starts the awaken phase, having incremented the counter.
However, it blocks when attempting to acquire the rcu_state
structure's .exp_wake_mutex because step 2's kworker task has
not yet released it.
6. Steps 4 and 5 repeat, resulting in overflow of the rcu_node
structure's ->exp_wq[] array.
In theory, this is harmless. Tasks waiting on the various ->exp_wq[]
array will just be spuriously awakened, but they will just sleep again
on noting that the rcu_state structure's ->expedited_sequence value has
not advanced far enough.
In practice, this wastes CPU time and is an accident waiting to happen.
This commit therefore moves the rcu_exp_gp_seq_end() call that officially
ends the expedited grace period (along with associate tracing) until
after the ->exp_wake_mutex has been acquired. This prevents Task A from
awakening prematurely, thus preventing more than one expedited grace
period from being in flight during a previous expedited grace period's
wakeup phase.
Fixes: 3b5f668e715b ("rcu: Overlap wakeups with next expedited grace period")
Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>
[ paulmck: Added updated comment. ]
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
---
kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h | 11 +++++------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
index fa143e4..7a1f093 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
@@ -539,14 +539,13 @@ static void rcu_exp_wait_wake(unsigned long s)
struct rcu_node *rnp;
synchronize_sched_expedited_wait();
- rcu_exp_gp_seq_end();
- trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rcu_state.name, s, TPS("end"));
- /*
- * Switch over to wakeup mode, allowing the next GP, but -only- the
- * next GP, to proceed.
- */
+ // Switch over to wakeup mode, allowing the next GP to proceed.
+ // End the previous grace period only after acquiring the mutex
+ // to ensure that only one GP runs concurrently with wakeups.
mutex_lock(&rcu_state.exp_wake_mutex);
+ rcu_exp_gp_seq_end();
+ trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rcu_state.name, s, TPS("end"));
rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first(rnp) {
if (ULONG_CMP_LT(READ_ONCE(rnp->exp_seq_rq), s)) {
Powered by blists - more mailing lists