[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <PH0PR11MB5880375F53618C19D944EB06DA8F9@PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 04:34:58 +0000
From: "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
To: "paulmck@...nel.org" <paulmck@...nel.org>
CC: "frederic@...nel.org" <frederic@...nel.org>,
"quic_neeraju@...cinc.com" <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
"joel@...lfernandes.org" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
"rcu@...r.kernel.org" <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] rcu-tasks: Make RCU Tasks Trace checking for userspace
execution
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 11:54:53PM +0000, Zhang, Qiang1 wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 08:16:10AM +0800, Zqiang wrote:
> > For RCU tasks trace, the userspace execution is also a valid
> > quiescent state, if the task is in userspace, the
> > ->trc_reader_nesting should be zero and if the
> > ->trc_reader_special.b.need_qs is not set, set the tasks
> > ->trc_reader_special.b.need_qs is TRC_NEED_QS_CHECKED, this cause grace-period kthread remove it from holdout list if it remains here.
> >
> > This commit add rcu_tasks_trace_qs() to rcu_flavor_sched_clock_irq()
> > when the kernel built with no PREEMPT_RCU.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
> >
> >The looks plausible to me, but can you tell me how this avoids the
> >following sequence of events?
> >
> >o CPU 0 takes a scheduling-clock interrupt. Just before this
> > point CPU 0 was running in user context, thus as you say
> > should not be in an RCU Tasks quiescent state.
> >
> >o CPU 0 enters an RCU Tasks Trace read-side critical section.
>
> if I understand correctly, you mean that CPU0 enters an RCU Tasks
> Trace read-side critical section in scheduling-clock interrupt context.
>
>Exactly, as might happen if one of the functions in the scheduling-clock interrupt hander were traced/instrumented.
>
> >o CPU 1 starts a new RCU Tasks Trace grace period.
>
> The grace period kthread will scan running tasks on each CPU, The
> tasks currently running on CPU0 will be recorded in the holdout list.
>
>Yes, very good.
>
> >o CPU 0 reaches the newly added rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch().
>
> In this time, if CPU0 still in RCU Tasks Trace read-side critical
> section, the tasks which running on CPU0 will insert CPU0 blocked
> list. when this tasks exit RCU Tasks Trace read-side critical section, this task will remove from CPU0 block list.
>
> Did I understand the scenario described above correctly?
>
>Looks like it to me.
>
>Could you please resend the patch with this explained in the commit log? Possibly for the benefit of your future self. ;-)
>
Hi Paul,
I have resent v3 again, but maybe still need your wording 😊.
Thanks
Zqiang
> Thanx, Paul
>
> Thanks
> Zqiang
>
> >
> > Except that the quiescent state implied by userspace execution
> > was before the new grace period, and thus does not apply to it.
> >
> >(Yes, I know, if this is a bug in this patch, the bug already exists
> >due to the call in rcu_flavor_sched_clock_irq() for !PREEMPT kernels,
> >but if this change is safe, it should be possible to explain why.)
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > ---
> > v1->v2:
> > Fix build error due to undeclared rcu_tasks_trace_qs(), note in
> > no-PREEMPT_RCU kernel, the RCU Tasks is replaced by RCU, so
> > rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch()
> > only include rcu_tasks_trace_qs().
> >
> > kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > index 4152816dd29f..5fb0b2dd24fd 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > @@ -976,7 +976,7 @@ static void rcu_flavor_sched_clock_irq(int user)
> > * neither access nor modify, at least not while the
> > * corresponding CPU is online.
> > */
> > -
> > + rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch(current);
> > rcu_qs();
> > }
> > }
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists