linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcu-tasks: Directly invoke rcuwait_wake_up() in call_rcu_tasks

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: <258C736B-5957-4874-9CD8-BBC1E321A092@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Thu, 23 Feb 2023 11:57:54 -0500
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
Cc:     "Zhuo, Qiuxu" <qiuxu.zhuo@...el.com>, paulmck@...nel.org,
        frederic@...nel.org, quic_neeraju@...cinc.com, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu-tasks: Directly invoke rcuwait_wake_up() in call_rcu_tasks_generic()



> On Feb 23, 2023, at 11:10 AM, Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 08:43:05AM +0000, Zhang, Qiang1 wrote:
>>> From: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2023 2:30 PM
>>> To: paulmck@...nel.org; frederic@...nel.org; quic_neeraju@...cinc.com;
>>> joel@...lfernandes.org
>>> Cc: rcu@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>>> Subject: [PATCH] rcu-tasks: Directly invoke rcuwait_wake_up() in
>>> call_rcu_tasks_generic()
>>> 
>>> According to commit '3063b33a347c ("Avoid raw-spinlocked wakeups from
>>> call_rcu_tasks_generic()")', the grace-period kthread is delayed to wakeup
>>> using irq_work_queue() is because if the caller of
>>> call_rcu_tasks_generic() holds a raw spinlock, when the kernel is built with
>>> CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING=y, due to a spinlock will be hold in
>>> wake_up(), so the lockdep splats will happen. but now using
>>> rcuwait_wake_up() to wakeup grace-period kthread instead of wake_up(), in
>>> rcuwait_wake_up() no spinlock will be acquired, so this commit remove using
>>> 
>>> There are still spinlock-acquisition and spinlock-release invocations within the call path from rcuwait_wake_up().
>>> 
>>> rcuwait_wake_up() -> wake_up_process() -> try_to_wake_up(), then:
>>> 
>>>   raw_spin_lock_irqsave()
>>>   ...
>>>   raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
>> 
>> Yes, but this is raw_spinlock acquisition and release(note: spinlock will convert to
>> sleepable lock in Preempt-RT kernel, but raw spinlock is not change).
>> 
>> acquire raw_spinlock -> acquire spinlock  will trigger lockdep warning.
> 
> Is this really safe in the long run though? I seem to remember there are
> weird locking dependencies if RCU is used from within the scheduler [1].
> 
> I prefer to keep it as irq_work_queue() unless you are seeing some benefit.
> Generally, there has to be a 'win' or other justification for adding more
> risk.

On second thought, you are deleting a decent number of lines.

What do others think?

I will take a closer look later, I am interested in researching the new lock dependency this adds.

 - Joel

> 
> thanks,
> 
> - Joel
> [1] http://www.joelfernandes.org/rcu/scheduler/locking/2019/09/02/rcu-schedlocks.html
> 
>>> irq_work_queue(), invoke rcuwait_wake_up() directly in
>>> call_rcu_tasks_generic().
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
>>> ---
>>> kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 16 +---------------
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h index
>>> baf7ec178155..757b8c6da1ad 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>>> @@ -39,7 +39,6 @@ struct rcu_tasks_percpu {
>>>    unsigned long rtp_jiffies;
>>>    unsigned long rtp_n_lock_retries;
>>>    struct work_struct rtp_work;
>>> -    struct irq_work rtp_irq_work;
>>>    struct rcu_head barrier_q_head;
>>>    struct list_head rtp_blkd_tasks;
>>>    int cpu;
>>> @@ -112,12 +111,9 @@ struct rcu_tasks {
>>>    char *kname;
>>> };
>>> 
>>> -static void call_rcu_tasks_iw_wakeup(struct irq_work *iwp);
>>> -
>>> #define DEFINE_RCU_TASKS(rt_name, gp, call, n)
>>>            \
>>> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rcu_tasks_percpu, rt_name ## __percpu) = {
>>>            \
>>>    .lock = __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(rt_name ##
>>> __percpu.cbs_pcpu_lock),        \
>>> -    .rtp_irq_work = IRQ_WORK_INIT_HARD(call_rcu_tasks_iw_wakeup),
>>>            \
>>> };
>>>        \
>>> static struct rcu_tasks rt_name =
>>>        \
>>> {
>>>        \
>>> @@ -273,16 +269,6 @@ static void cblist_init_generic(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
>>>    pr_info("%s: Setting shift to %d and lim to %d.\n", __func__,
>>> data_race(rtp->percpu_enqueue_shift), data_race(rtp-
>>>> percpu_enqueue_lim));
>>> }
>>> 
>>> -// IRQ-work handler that does deferred wakeup for call_rcu_tasks_generic().
>>> -static void call_rcu_tasks_iw_wakeup(struct irq_work *iwp) -{
>>> -    struct rcu_tasks *rtp;
>>> -    struct rcu_tasks_percpu *rtpcp = container_of(iwp, struct
>>> rcu_tasks_percpu, rtp_irq_work);
>>> -
>>> -    rtp = rtpcp->rtpp;
>>> -    rcuwait_wake_up(&rtp->cbs_wait);
>>> -}
>>> -
>>> // Enqueue a callback for the specified flavor of Tasks RCU.
>>> static void call_rcu_tasks_generic(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t func,
>>>                   struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
>>> @@ -334,7 +320,7 @@ static void call_rcu_tasks_generic(struct rcu_head
>>> *rhp, rcu_callback_t func,
>>>    rcu_read_unlock();
>>>    /* We can't create the thread unless interrupts are enabled. */
>>>    if (needwake && READ_ONCE(rtp->kthread_ptr))
>>> -        irq_work_queue(&rtpcp->rtp_irq_work);
>>> +        rcuwait_wake_up(&rtp->cbs_wait);
>>> }
>>> 
>>> // RCU callback function for rcu_barrier_tasks_generic().
>>> --
>>> 2.25.1
>>