linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 06/18] rcu: Introduce call_rcu

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220906151757.GA183806@lothringen>
Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2022 17:17:57 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        rushikesh.s.kadam@...el.com, urezki@...il.com,
        neeraj.iitr10@...il.com, paulmck@...nel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        vineeth@...byteword.org, boqun.feng@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/18] rcu: Introduce call_rcu_lazy() API
 implementation

On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 03:05:46AM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> index 4dc86274b3e8..b201606f7c4f 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> @@ -256,6 +256,31 @@ static bool wake_nocb_gp(struct rcu_data *rdp, bool force)
>  	return __wake_nocb_gp(rdp_gp, rdp, force, flags);
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * LAZY_FLUSH_JIFFIES decides the maximum amount of time that
> + * can elapse before lazy callbacks are flushed. Lazy callbacks
> + * could be flushed much earlier for a number of other reasons
> + * however, LAZY_FLUSH_JIFFIES will ensure no lazy callbacks are
> + * left unsubmitted to RCU after those many jiffies.
> + */
> +#define LAZY_FLUSH_JIFFIES (10 * HZ)
> +unsigned long jiffies_till_flush = LAZY_FLUSH_JIFFIES;

Still not static.

> @@ -293,12 +322,16 @@ static void wake_nocb_gp_defer(struct rcu_data *rdp, int waketype,
>   * proves to be initially empty, just return false because the no-CB GP
>   * kthread may need to be awakened in this case.
>   *
> + * Return true if there was something to be flushed and it succeeded, otherwise
> + * false.
> + *

This kind of contradict the comment that follows. Not sure you need to add
that line because the existing comment seem to cover it.

>   * Note that this function always returns true if rhp is NULL.

>   */
>  static bool rcu_nocb_do_flush_bypass(struct rcu_data *rdp, struct rcu_head *rhp,
> -				     unsigned long j)
> +				     unsigned long j, unsigned long flush_flags)
>  {
>  	struct rcu_cblist rcl;
> +	bool lazy = flush_flags & FLUSH_BP_LAZY;
>  
>  	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp));
>  	rcu_lockdep_assert_cblist_protected(rdp);
> @@ -326,13 +372,20 @@ static bool rcu_nocb_do_flush_bypass(struct rcu_data *rdp, struct rcu_head *rhp,
>   * Note that this function always returns true if rhp is NULL.
>   */
>  static bool rcu_nocb_flush_bypass(struct rcu_data *rdp, struct rcu_head *rhp,
> -				  unsigned long j)
> +				  unsigned long j, unsigned long flush_flags)
>  {
> +	bool ret;
> +
>  	if (!rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp))
>  		return true;
>  	rcu_lockdep_assert_cblist_protected(rdp);
>  	rcu_nocb_bypass_lock(rdp);
> -	return rcu_nocb_do_flush_bypass(rdp, rhp, j);
> +	ret = rcu_nocb_do_flush_bypass(rdp, rhp, j, flush_flags);
> +
> +	if (flush_flags & FLUSH_BP_WAKE)
> +		wake_nocb_gp(rdp, true);

Why the true above?

Also should we check if the wake up is really necessary (otherwise it means we
force a wake up for all rdp's from rcu_barrier())?

       was_alldone = rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs(&rdp->cblist);
       ret = rcu_nocb_do_flush_bypass(rdp, rhp, j, flush_flags);
       if (was_alldone && rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs(&rdp->cblist))
       	  wake_nocb_gp(rdp, false);


> @@ -461,16 +521,29 @@ static bool rcu_nocb_try_bypass(struct rcu_data *rdp, struct rcu_head *rhp,
>  	// We need to use the bypass.
>  	rcu_nocb_wait_contended(rdp);
>  	rcu_nocb_bypass_lock(rdp);
> +
>  	ncbs = rcu_cblist_n_cbs(&rdp->nocb_bypass);
>  	rcu_segcblist_inc_len(&rdp->cblist); /* Must precede enqueue. */
>  	rcu_cblist_enqueue(&rdp->nocb_bypass, rhp);
> +
> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_LAZY) && lazy)
> +		WRITE_ONCE(rdp->lazy_len, rdp->lazy_len + 1);
> +
>  	if (!ncbs) {
>  		WRITE_ONCE(rdp->nocb_bypass_first, j);
>  		trace_rcu_nocb_wake(rcu_state.name, rdp->cpu, TPS("FirstBQ"));
>  	}
> +
>  	rcu_nocb_bypass_unlock(rdp);
>  	smp_mb(); /* Order enqueue before wake. */
> -	if (ncbs) {
> +
> +	// We had CBs in the bypass list before. There is nothing else to do if:
> +	// There were only non-lazy CBs before, in this case, the bypass timer

Kind of misleading. I would replace "There were only non-lazy CBs before" with
"There was at least one non-lazy CBs before".

> +	// or GP-thread will handle the CBs including any new lazy ones.
> +	// Or, the new CB is lazy and the old bypass-CBs were also lazy. In this
> +	// case the old lazy timer would have been setup. When that expires,
> +	// the new lazy one will be handled.
> +	if (ncbs && (!bypass_is_lazy || lazy)) {
>  		local_irq_restore(flags);
>  	} else {
>  		// No-CBs GP kthread might be indefinitely asleep, if so, wake.
> @@ -479,6 +552,10 @@ static bool rcu_nocb_try_bypass(struct rcu_data *rdp, struct rcu_head *rhp,
>  			trace_rcu_nocb_wake(rcu_state.name, rdp->cpu,
>  					    TPS("FirstBQwake"));
>  			__call_rcu_nocb_wake(rdp, true, flags);
> +		} else if (bypass_is_lazy && !lazy) {
> +			trace_rcu_nocb_wake(rcu_state.name, rdp->cpu,
> +					    TPS("FirstBQwakeLazy2Non"));
> +			__call_rcu_nocb_wake(rdp, true, flags);

Not sure we need this chunk. Since there are pending callbacks anyway,
nocb_gp_wait() should be handling them and it will set the appropriate
timer on the next loop.

Thanks.

>  		} else {
>  			trace_rcu_nocb_wake(rcu_state.name, rdp->cpu,
>  					    TPS("FirstBQnoWake"));