linux-kernel - [PATCH rcu 05/11] rcu: Add comments to final rcu_gp

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20220418225359.3945217-5-paulmck@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 18 Apr 2022 15:53:53 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     rcu@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH rcu 05/11] rcu: Add comments to final rcu_gp_cleanup() "if" statement

The final "if" statement in rcu_gp_cleanup() has proven to be rather
confusing, straightforward though it might have seemed when initially
written.  This commit therefore adds comments to its "then" and "else"
clauses to at least provide a more elevated form of confusion.

Reported-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Reported-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Reported-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>
Reported-by: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/rcu/tree.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index a5ea67454640..29669070348e 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -2098,14 +2098,29 @@ static noinline void rcu_gp_cleanup(void)
 	/* Advance CBs to reduce false positives below. */
 	offloaded = rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp);
 	if ((offloaded || !rcu_accelerate_cbs(rnp, rdp)) && needgp) {
+
+		// We get here if a grace period was needed (“needgp”)
+		// and the above call to rcu_accelerate_cbs() did not set
+		// the RCU_GP_FLAG_INIT bit in ->gp_state (which records
+		// the need for another grace period).  The purpose
+		// of the “offloaded” check is to avoid invoking
+		// rcu_accelerate_cbs() on an offloaded CPU because we do not
+		// hold the ->nocb_lock needed to safely access an offloaded
+		// ->cblist.  We do not want to acquire that lock because
+		// it can be heavily contended during callback floods.
+
 		WRITE_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags, RCU_GP_FLAG_INIT);
 		WRITE_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_req_activity, jiffies);
-		trace_rcu_grace_period(rcu_state.name,
-				       rcu_state.gp_seq,
-				       TPS("newreq"));
+		trace_rcu_grace_period(rcu_state.name, rcu_state.gp_seq, TPS("newreq"));
 	} else {
-		WRITE_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags,
-			   rcu_state.gp_flags & RCU_GP_FLAG_INIT);
+
+		// We get here either if there is no need for an
+		// additional grace period or if rcu_accelerate_cbs() has
+		// already set the RCU_GP_FLAG_INIT bit in ->gp_flags. 
+		// So all we need to do is to clear all of the other
+		// ->gp_flags bits.
+
+		WRITE_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags, rcu_state.gp_flags & RCU_GP_FLAG_INIT);
 	}
 	raw_spin_unlock_irq_rcu_node(rnp);
 
-- 
2.31.1.189.g2e36527f23