[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210915233343.3906738-8-paulmck@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 16:33:37 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: rcu@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
oleg@...hat.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH rcu 08/14] rcu: Move rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() to rcu_cpu_starting()
The purpose of rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() is to adjust the ->dynticks
counter of an incoming CPU when required. It is currently invoked
from rcutree_prepare_cpu(), which runs before the incoming CPU is
running, and thus on some other CPU. This makes the per-CPU accesses in
rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() iffy at best, and it all "works" only because
the running CPU cannot possibly be in dyntick-idle mode, which means
that rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() never has any effect.
It is currently OK for rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() to have no effect, but
only because the CPU-offline process just happens to leave ->dynticks in
the correct state. After all, if ->dynticks were in the wrong state on a
just-onlined CPU, rcutorture would complain bitterly the next time that
CPU went idle, at least in kernels built with CONFIG_RCU_EQS_DEBUG=y,
for example, those built by rcutorture scenario TREE04. One could
argue that this means that rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() is unnecessary,
however, removing it would make the CPU-online process vulnerable to
slight changes in the CPU-offline process.
One could also ask why it is safe to move the rcu_dynticks_eqs_online()
call so late in the CPU-online process. Indeed, there was a time when it
would not have been safe, which does much to explain its current location.
However, the marking of a CPU as online from an RCU perspective has long
since moved from rcutree_prepare_cpu() to rcu_cpu_starting(), and all
that is required is that ->dynticks be set correctly by the time that
the CPU is marked as online from an RCU perspective. After all, the RCU
grace-period kthread does not check to see if offline CPUs are also idle.
(In case you were curious, this is one reason why there is quiescent-state
reporting as part of the offlining process.)
This commit therefore moves the call to rcu_dynticks_eqs_online() from
rcutree_prepare_cpu() to rcu_cpu_starting(), this latter being guaranteed
to be running on the incoming CPU. The call to this function must of
course be placed before this rcu_cpu_starting() announces this CPU's
presence to RCU.
Reported-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
---
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index e6e1b9281530..801075e36515 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -4129,7 +4129,6 @@ int rcutree_prepare_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
rdp->n_force_qs_snap = READ_ONCE(rcu_state.n_force_qs);
rdp->blimit = blimit;
rdp->dynticks_nesting = 1; /* CPU not up, no tearing. */
- rcu_dynticks_eqs_online();
raw_spin_unlock_rcu_node(rnp); /* irqs remain disabled. */
/*
@@ -4249,6 +4248,7 @@ void rcu_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu)
mask = rdp->grpmask;
WRITE_ONCE(rnp->ofl_seq, rnp->ofl_seq + 1);
WARN_ON_ONCE(!(rnp->ofl_seq & 0x1));
+ rcu_dynticks_eqs_online();
smp_mb(); // Pair with rcu_gp_cleanup()'s ->ofl_seq barrier().
raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
WRITE_ONCE(rnp->qsmaskinitnext, rnp->qsmaskinitnext | mask);
--
2.31.1.189.g2e36527f23
Powered by blists - more mailing lists