linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcu/tree: Improve comments in rcu_report_qs

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: <CAEXW_YRwe781s1faLQcRBvL5pBWv9WmRuhcP=PmqHUJcm9Rphg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:19:34 -0500
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        "rcu@...r.kernel.org" <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu/tree: Improve comments in rcu_report_qs_rdp()

On Sun, Feb 5, 2023 at 10:09 PM Zhang, Qiang1 <qiang1.zhang@...el.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Recent discussion triggered due to a patch linked below, from Qiang,
> >shed light on the need to accelerate from QS reporting paths.
> >
> >Update the comments to capture this piece of knowledge.
> >
> >Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230118073014.2020743-1-qiang1.zhang@intel.com/
> >Cc: Qiang Zhang <Qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
> >Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
> >Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> >
> >---
> > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> >index 93eb03f8ed99..713eb6ca6902 100644
> >--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> >+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> >@@ -1983,7 +1983,12 @@ rcu_report_qs_rdp(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> >       } else {
> >               /*
> >                * This GP can't end until cpu checks in, so all of our
> >-               * callbacks can be processed during the next GP.
> >+               * callbacks can be processed during the next GP. Do
> >+               * the acceleration from here otherwise there may be extra
> >+               * grace period delays, as any accelerations from rcu_core()
>
>
> Does the extra grace period delays means that if not accelerate callback,
> the grace period will take more time to end ? or refers to a delay in the
> start time of a new grace period?

Yes, so IMO it is like this if we don't accelerate:
1. Start GP 1
2. CPU1 queues callback C1 (not accelerated yet)
3. CPU1 reports QS for GP1 (not accelerating anything).
4. GP1 ends
5. CPU1's note_gp_changes() is called, accelerate happens, now the CB
will execute after GP3 (or alternately, rcu_core() on CPU1 does
accelerate).
6. GP2 ends.
7. GP3 starts.
8. GP3 ends.
9. CB is invoked

Instead, what we will get the following thanks to the acceleration here is:
1. Start GP 1
2. CPU1 queues callback C1 (not accelerated yet)
3. CPU1 reports QS for GP1 and acceleration happens as done by the
code this patch adds comments for.
4. GP1 ends
5. CPU1's note_gp_changes() is called
6. GP2 ends.
7. CB is invoked

Does that make sense or is there a subtlety I missed?

Thanks,

 - Joel


>
> Thanks
> Zqiang
>
> >+               * or note_gp_changes() may happen only after the GP after the
> >+               * current one has already started. Further, rcu_core()
> >+               * only accelerates if RCU is idle (no GP in progress).
> >                *
> >                * NOCB kthreads have their own way to deal with that...
> >                */
> >@@ -1993,6 +1998,12 @@ rcu_report_qs_rdp(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> >                       /*
> >                        * ...but NOCB kthreads may miss or delay callbacks acceleration
> >                        * if in the middle of a (de-)offloading process.
> >+                       *
> >+                       * Such missed acceleration may cause the callbacks to
> >+                       * be stranded until RCU is fully de-offloaded, as
> >+                       * acceleration from rcu_core() and note_gp_changes()
> >+                       * cannot happen for fully/partially offloaded mode due
> >+                       * to ordering dependency between rnp lock and nocb_lock.
> >                        */
> >                       needacc = true;
> >               }
> >--
> >2.39.1.519.gcb327c4b5f-goog
> >